UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


SELECT  SPEECHES 


OF    THE 


RIGHT  HONOURABLE  GEORGE  CANNING; 


WITH 


A  PRELIMINARY  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH, 


AND 


AN  APPENDIX, 


EXTRACTS   FROM    HIS   WRITINGS   AND    SPEECHES. 


EDITED  BY  ROBERT  WALSH. 


PHILADELPHIA 
PUBLISHED  BY  KEY  AND  BIDDLE. 
1835. 


^874 


'I  '  •  ( 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1835,  by 

Key  and  Biddle, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


STEREOTYPED  BY  L.  JOHNSON, 
PHILADELPHIA. 


**  ■*+  »i  £ 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


All  the  Speeches  in  this  collection  were  revised  by 

Mr.  Canning.     The  London  edition  of  his   Speeches 

consists  of  six  octavo  volumes,  the  first  of  which  contains 

\      a  copious  and   authentic  memoir  of  his  life.     It  was 

**•    originally  the  design  of  the  American  editor  to  furnish  an 

$„   entirely  new  biography,  more  minute  and  comprehensive, 

with  critical  notes  on  the  oratory  and  political  career  of 

Mr.  Canning.    But  he  has  found  the  proper  execution  of 

this  plan  impracticable,  consistently  with  the  limits  of 

this  publication,  and  the  paramount  object  of  including 

all  the  master-pieces  of  the  orator,  and  the  specimens 

which  form    the   Appendix.      He    has   added    to  the 

'  speeches  adopted,  some  of  Canning's  early  writings,  and 

remarkable  passages  of  the   other   principal  speeches. 

The  matter  preferred  is  thought  to  be  that  which,  from 

various  considerations,  is  most  eligible  for  the  American 

meridian.     Mr.  Canning  frequently  took   part  in   the 

debates  on  the  Catholic  question,  and  always  with  signal 

superiority  of  eloquence   and   liberality  of  sentiment. 

A  sufficient  specimen   is  given  in  this  volume  of  his 

powers  and  feelings  on  that   subject.     A  consummate 

lawyer  might  be  proud  of  his  argument  on  the  Roman 

Catholic  Peers'  bill,  which  is  indeed  admirable  through- 

3 


i 


4  ADVERTISEMENT. 

out  for  dialectics  and  style ;  but  an  extract  from  it  has 
been  deemed  enough.  He  treated  the  questions  of  free 
trade,  the  corn  laws,  and  currency,  and  others  merely 
economical,  with  unsurpassed  ability  and  effect ;  in  all 
discussions  of  strict  party  and  personal  politics,  he  was 
without  an  equal.  His  election  and  dinner  speeches, 
which  are  separated  in  our  volume  from  his  parliament- 
ary efforts,  possess  as  much  merit  of  every  kind  as  any 
of  his  productions,  and  transcend  altogether  any  similar 
effusions  extant  in  print.  The  void  which  he  left  as  an 
orator  and  debater  has  not  been  supplied. 

A  principal  object  with  the  American  editor  and  pub- 
lishers is  to  put  within  the  reach  of  the  youth  of  this  coun- 
try, who  must  or  may  become  public  speakers,  the  best 
models  of  oratory  which  Great  Britain  has  furnished 
within  the  last  half  century.  The  same  models  include 
so  much  of  the  political  history  of  the  period,  and  possess 
a  literary  excellence  so  rare,  that  they  will  be  deemed  an 
important  acquisition  by  all  Americans  of  general  and 
refined  studies.  Canning's  Speeches  hold  the  first 
rank  among  them,  and  are  therefore  first  given.  Those 
of  Wyndham,  Huskisson,  Mackintosh,  Brougham,  Peel, 
and  others,  alike  distinguished,  will  be  issued  in  the 
same  form  and  upon  the  same  plan,  in  case  the  present 
volume  should  win  that  diffusive  favour  and  patronage 
to  which  it  would  seem  to  be  entitled. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 


George  Canning  was  born  in  London,  on  the  11th  of  April, 
1770.  His  family  was  ancient  and  respectable.  It  was  origin- 
ally from  Warwickshire  in  England,  but  his  branch  of  it  had 
been  long  settled  in  Ireland,  where  the  manor  of  Garvagh,  in 
Londonderry,  had  been  granted  by  James  I.  to  an  ancestor.  His 
father  was  a  gentleman  of  considerable  literary  acquirements,  and 
had  been  called  to  the  bar  after  studying  in  the  Middle  Temple, 
but  his  marriage  with  a  dowerless  beauty  so  displeased  his  parents 
that  he  was  cut  off  from  the  property  of  which  he  was  the  right- 
ful heir.  A  bare  allowance  of  £  150  a  year  was  all  that  was  given 
him,  and  this  he  was  unable  to  increase  sufficiently  to  render  him- 
self comfortable.  He  was  unsuccessful  in  his  profession,  his  tastes 
and  talents  rather  inclining  him  to  poetry  and  polite  literature 
than  to  the  unattractive  studies  of  the  law.  He  abandoned 
it,  and  became  a  wine-merchant,  but  died  in  April  1771,  a  year 
precisely  after  the  birth  of  his  son,  before  he  had  effected  his  ex- 
trication from  the  difficulties  in  which  he  was  involved.  Mrs. 
Canning  being  thus  left  destitute,  was  obliged  to  exert  her  talents 
and  accomplishments  for  the  maintenance  of  herself  and  child,  and 
went  upon  the  stage.  Her  success  was  not  brilliant,  but  it  was 
adequate  to  give  her  an  independent  support.  She  married  a  second 
time,  Mr.  Hunn,  an  actor,  and  soon  became  again  a  widow. 

The  early  education  of  Mr.  Canning  was  superintended  by  his 
guardian  and  uncle,  Mr.  Stratford  Canning,  an  eminent  London 
merchant,  who  died  a  short  time  before  Mr.  Canning  went  to  the 
university.  His  scholastic  and  collegiate  expenses,  however,  were 
defrayed  from  a  small  estate  in  Ireland,  bequeathed  to  him  by  his 
grandfather,  who,  at  the  urgent  request  of  his  grandmother,  was 
induced  to  make  a  settlement  upon  him,  which,  although  insuffi- 
cient as  a  provision  for  life,  was  ample  as  a  fund  for  education.  His 
first  academic  instruction  was  received  at  Hyde  Abbey,  whence  he 

A  2  5 


VI  BIOGRAPHICAL     SKETCH. 

was  sent  to  Eton,  between  twelve  and  thirteen  years  of  age,  and 
placed  in  the  remove  at  once  as  an  oppidan.  There  he  soon 
became  conspicuous  for  the  elegance  of  his  Latin  and  English 
poetry,  as  well  as  for  the  easy  flow  and  propriety  which  distin- 
guished his  prose  compositions.  His  contem^raries  at  Eton  de- 
scribe him  as  a  boy  possessed  of  great  quickness  in  apprehending 
whatever  he  undertook  to  learn  ;  of  a  frank,  generous,  and  con- 
ciliatory disposition  ;  and  of  a  bold,  manly,  unflinching  spirit: 
qualities  admirably  calculated  to  render  him  popular  in  a  public 
school.  Although  he  evinced  a  superiority  of  intelligence  over 
his  companions,  there  was  nothing  precocious  in  his  ascendency, 
or  fallacious  and  forced  in  his  talent.  He  possessed  great  natural 
capabilities,  and  these  he  improved  by  the  most  sedulous  and  suc- 
cessful cultivation.  He  laboured  hard,  sensible  that  with  faculties 
such  as  his,  nothing  would  be  denied  to  labour.  His  assiduity 
was  rather  increased  and  stimulated  than  diminished,  by  the  con- 
sciousness of  his  power;  and  the  success  which  crowned  him  was 
not  more  the  triumph  of  genius  than  the  patient  result  of  perse- 
vering industry.  The  lead  which  he  took  when  a  boy,  he  main- 
tained throughout  the  intellectual  emulations  of  youth,  and  through 
the  sterner  struggles  of  ambitious  and  unyielding  manhood.  At 
fifteen  years  of  age,  he  was  one  of  the~most  distinguished  scholars 
at  Eton,  and  joined  with  othersof  his  school-fellows  in  producing 
a  literary  work  of  high  classical  repute,  entitled  the  Microcosm, 
the  publication  of  which  commenced  in  1786.  Its  appearance 
forms  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  school.  It  introduced  an 
improved  taste  for  classical  composition,  and  kept  alive  the  spirit 
of  a  generous  rivalry,  which  led  to  the  formation  of  permanent  and 
worthy  friendships.  Mr.  Canning  was  its  avowed  editor,  as  well 
as  its  ablest  and  most  popular  supporter.  The  essays  which  he 
contributed  were  signed  "  B,"  and  evince  a  remarkable  facility 
and  happiness  of  expression,  together  with  a  vein  of  sprightly  and 
well-tempered  satire. 

In  1788,  when  in  his  eighteenth  year,  Mr.  Canning  left  Eton, 
and  was  entered  at  Christ  Church  College,  Oxford.  The  fame  of 
his  talents  had  preceded  him  to  the  University.  There  he  fully 
sustained,  and  even  enhanced,  his  high  reputation.  Continued 
habits  of  persevering  industry  imparted  solidity  to  the  elegance 


BIOGRAPHICAL    SKETCH.  VII 

of  his  attainments.  He  won  several  prizes  by  compositions,  the 
pure  Latinity  of  which  received  high  and  merited  commendation 
from  the  heads  of  the  University.  Here  also  he  contracted  some 
intimacies  with  eminent  men,  which  endured  as  long  as  he  lived, 
and  were  productive  of  the  greatest  advantage  to  him.  Of  these, 
perhaps  the  most  important,  so  far  as  relates  to  his  subsequent 
destiny  as  a  public  man,  was  the  friendship  which  he  formed  with 
the  late  Earl  of  Liverpool,  then  Mr.  Jenkinson. 

On  obtaining  a  bachelor's  degree,  Mr.  Canning  entered  himself 
a  student  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  and  took  chambers  there;  but  he 
studied  the  law  rather  with  a  view  of  understanding  the  principles 
of  the  Constitution,  than  of  practising  it  as  a  profession.     It  was 
whilst  he  was  a  student  that  his  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Sheridan, 
who  had  previously  noticed  him  as  a  promising  school-boy,  ripen- 
ed into  intimacy.    The  assertion,  however,  that  this  distinguished 
personage  was  related  to  him,  seems  to  be  entirely  a  mistake. 
During  the  same  period  also,  he  greatly  augmented  the  reputation 
as  a  speaker  which  he  had  acquired  at  Oxford,  by  frequenting 
several  private  debating  societies.     It  was  to  the  celebrity  which 
he  thus  obtained,  that  he  owed  his  introduction  to  Mr.  Pitt.    The 
minister  having  heard  of  his  talents,  communicated  to  him  through 
a  private  channel,  a  desire  to  see  him — a  summons  with  which 
Mr.  Canning  readily  complied.     Mr.  Pitt  proceeded  immediately 
on  their  meeting  to  declare  to  Mr.  Canning  the  object  of  his 
request  of  an  interview  with  him;  which  was,  to  state  that  he 
had    heard    of   Mr.  Canning's    reputation    as   a   scholar   and   a 
speaker,  and  that,  if  he  concurred  in  the  policy  which  Govern- 
ment was  then  pursuing,  arrangements  would  be  made  to  facili- 
tate his  introduction  into  Parliament.     After  a  full  explanation 
between  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Canning,  of  the  feelings  of  each  on  all 
the  important  public  questions  of  the  moment,  the  result  was,  on 
Mr.  Canning's  part,  the  determination  to  connect  himself  politi- 
cally with  Mr.  Pitt;  and  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Pitt,  the  offer  of  a 
seat  in  Parliament.     He  may  have  confided  this  to  Mr.  Sheridan, 
or  possibly  may  have  consulted  him;  but  even  the  assertion,  so 
frequently  made,  that  Sheridan's  advice  mainly  influenced  him  in 
this  important  step,  is  sustained  by  no  competent  authority.   This 
acquiescence  in  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Pitt,  Mr.  Canning's  friends 


VIII  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

knew  to  be  consistent  with  his  previously  avowed  and  conscien- 
tious conviction,  as,  when  he  had  no  motives  of  interest  to  sway 
him  in  adopting  that  conviction,  and  very  strong  ones  to  dissuade 
him  from  it,  he  had  uncompromisingly  expressed  it  in  the  Whig 
circle  in  which  he  principally  moved,  and  by  which,  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  events,  it  was  natural  he  should  expect  to  be  intro- 
duced into  Parliament. 

It  is  alike  important  for  the  truth  of  history,  and  due  in  justice 
to  the  fame  of  Mr.  Canning,  to  state,  that  his  opinions  respecting 
the  French  Revolution  were  formed,  and  his  principles  determin- 
ed, long  before  a  prospect  presented  itself  of  his  becoming  ac- 
quainted with  Mr.  Pitt.  It  is  true  that  his  early  associates  were, 
for  the  most  part,  persons  of  Whig  principles;  his  uncle,  who 
superintended  his  education,  was  an  avowed  Whig;  and  his  own 
writings  and  speeches  at  the  University,  breathe  warm  sentiments 
in  favour  of  those  liberal  principles  with  which  the  name  of  that 
important  political  party  in  the  state  has  been  identified.  The 
French  Revolution,  however,  was  a  prodigious  event  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  world,  and  was  not  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  any 
settled  principles,  by  which  Whigs  and  Tories  had  hitherto  been 
discriminated  in  this  country.  By  the  leaders  of  both  parties,  at 
its  commencement,  it  was  approved;  for  it  is  an  historical  truth, 
that  favourable  sentiments  towards  the  French  Revolution  were 
at  first  expressed,  not  only  by  Mr.  Fox  (whose  generous  nature 
expanded  into  a  love  of  freedom  in  every  clime,  and  prompted  him 
to  hail,  with  enthusiastic  ardour,  the  first  efforts  of  a  mighty  people, 
rising  in  the  just  assertion  of  their  invaded  liberties,)  but  by  Mr. 
Pitt,  whom  few  persons  will  suspect  of  a  too  sanguine  tempera- 
ment, or  of  any  dangerous  ebullition  of  feeling  in  favour  of  free- 
dom— he  too  hailed  the  French  Revolution  in  its  origin;  and 
declared  his  conviction,  "  that  the  present  convulsions  in  France 
must,  sooner  or  later,  terminate  in  general  harmony  and  regular 
order.  Whenever  the  situation  of  France  should  become  restored, 
it  would  prove  freedom  rightly  understood — freedom  resulting 
from  good  order  and  good  government;  and,  thus  circumstanced, 
France  would  stand  forward  as  one  of  the  most  brilliant  powers 
in  Europe;  she  would  enjoy  that  just  kind  of  liberty  which  he 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  ix 

Venerated,  and  the  invaluable  existence  of  which  it  was  his  duty, 
as  an  Englishman,  particularly  to  cherish." 

In  the  general  exultation  which  the  French  Revolution,  at  its 
first  burst,  awakened,  even  among  the  temperate  advocates  of  well 
regulated  freedom,  throughout  Europe,  Mr.  Canning,  with  a  mind 
fresh  from  the  contemplation  of  those  heroic  achievements  in  the 
cause  of  freedom,  which  "raised  up  the  Greek  and  Roman  name 
with  such  a  lustre,"  sanguinely  participated.  This  admiration, 
however,  was  limited  to  the  principle  of  the  necessity  of  adjusting 
the  inequalities  of  the  political  condition  of  France — of  correcting 
its  abuses — and  of  remodelling  and  invigorating  the  institutions 
which  a  long  series  of  acts  of  misgovernment  had  enfeebled.  Mr. 
Canning's  opinions  respecting  the  French  Revolution,  however, 
had  undergone  a  change  previous  to  his  acquaintance  with  Mr. 
Pitt,  and  it  was  that  change  which  led  to  his  connexion  with  Mr. 
Pitt,  and  to  his  determination  not  to  connect  himself  politically 
with  the  Whig  party.  This  determination  was  strengthened  by 
the  course  which  Mr.  Fox  and  others  of  the  Whigs  took  about 
this  time,  and  which  produced  the  separation  between  Mr.  Fox 
and  Mr.  Grey,  on  the  one  side,  and  Mr.  Burke  and  Mr.  Wind- 
ham, on  the  other;  and  perhaps  the  most  intelligible  and  most 
correct  explanation  of  Mr.  Canning's  determination  not  to  con- 
nect himself  with  the  Whig  party,  but  to  attach  himself  to  Mr. 
Pitt,  is  to  state,  that  his  decision  was  formed  upon  the  same 
grounds  which  induced  the  Duke  of  Portland,  Lord  Spencer,  Mr. 
Windham,  Mr.  Grenville,  and  those  who  acted  with  them,  to 
separate  from  Mr.  Fox,  and  take  office  under  Mr.  Pitt,  and  at  the 
same  period  of  time,  though  independently  of  them,  and  without 
any  concert. 

"It  is  questionable,"  says  Mr.  Moore,  in  his  Life  of  Sheridan, 
"whether,  in  thus  resolving  to  join  the  ascendant  side,  Mr.  Can- 
ning has  not  conferred  a  greater  benefit  on  the  country,  than  he 
ever  would  have  been  able  to  effect  in  the  ranks  of  his  original 
friends.  That  party,  which  has  now  so  long  been  the  sole  depos- 
itary of  the  power  of  the  state,  had,  in  addition  to  the  original 
narrowness  of  its  principles,  contracted  all  that  proud  obstinacy 
in  antiquated  error,  which  is  the  invariable  characteristic  of  such 
monopolies  ;  and  which,  however  consonant  with  its  vocation,  as 
b 


X  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

the  chosen  instrument  of  the  Crown,  should  have  long  since  in- 
validated it  in  the  service  of  a  free  and  enlightened  people.  Some 
infusion  of  the  spirit  of  the  times  into  this  body  had  become  ne- 
cessary even  for  its  preservation,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  in- 
halement  of  youthful  breath  has  been  recommended  by  some  phy- 
sicians to  the  infirm  and  superannuated.  This  renovating  inspira- 
tion the  genius  of  Mr.  Canning  has  supplied.  His  first  political 
lessons  were  derived  from  sources  too  sacred  to  his  young  admi- 
ration to  be  forgotten.  He  has  carried  the  spirit  of  these  lessons 
with  him  into  the  councils  which  he  joined,  and,  by  the  vigour  of 
the  graft,  which  already,  indeed,  shows  itself  in  the  fruits,  bids 
fair  to  change  altogether  the  nature  of  toryism." 

Thus  Mr.  Canning  entered  into  public  life,  the  avowed  pupil 
of  Mr.  Pitt*  .  Ha-was-4^t»r-necLJto_J^arliament,  iiTT7-9%--fo£  the 
borough  of  Newport  in  the  Isle  of  WigKE  During  his  first  ses- 
sronTTiowever,  he  preferredbeing  a  mere  listener  and  learner,  to 
making  any  effort  to  display  his  eloquence.  It  was  not  until  the 
31st  of  January,  1794,  that  he  ventured  to  open  his  lips.  The 
subsidy  proposed  to  be  granted  to  the  King  of  Sardinia  was  the 
subject  of  his  maiden  speech,  which  sustained,  without  materially 
enhancing,  the  reputation  that  he  had  acquired. 

The  Address  on  the  King's  Speech,  at  the  opening  of  the  Par- 
liament, in  1795,  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Canning,  the  mover  being 
Sir  E.  Knatchbull.  His  speech  on  this  occasion,  contains  some 
specimens  of  eloquence.  Mr.  Pitt,  it  is  said,  spoke  of  it  in  the 
circle  of  his  private  friends,  and  of  the  admirable  address  with 
which  it  was  delivered,  as  an  indication  of  even  greater  abilities 
than  fame  had  awarded  to  him. 

A  short  time  previous  to  the  dissolution  of  Parliament  in  the 
spring  of  1796,  Mr.  Canning  accepted  the  office  of  Under  Secre- 
tary for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Lord  Grenville.  The  next  session  he 
was  returned  for  Wendover.  During  the  session  of  1796  and 
1797,  he  chiefly  confined  his  attention  to  the  immediate  and 
laborious  duties  of  his  office. 

On  the  20th  of  November,  1797,  the  first  number  of  the  Anti- 
Jacobin  Review,  or  Weekly  Examiner,  appeared.  Of  this  work 
Mr.  Gifford  was  the  Editor,  and  Mr.  Canning  the  most  popular 
contributor;  Lord  Seaford,  Mr.  G.  Ellis,  Mr.  Frere,  were  also 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH  XI 

understood  to  be  powerful  supporters  of  it.  The  object  of  the 
Review  was  to  attack,  by  ridicule,  the  principles  which  were 
then  so  disastrously  predominant  in  France,  and  which  active 
efforts  were  making  to  introduce  into  England.  To  this  the 
Anti-Jacobin  served  as  a  successful  check.  The  pieces  attributed 
to  Mr.  Canning  were  characterized  by  a  vein  of  light,  sportive, 
and  satirical  humour.  "The  Knife  Grinder,"  the  more  elaborate 
and  serious  satire  of  "  New  Morality,"  and  "  The  Elegy  on  the 
Death  of  Jean  Bon  St.  Andre,"  are  among  the  most  admired 
poetical  contributions.  The  exclusive  merit  of  them,  however, 
does  not  belong  to  Mr.  Canning;  indeed  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  distinguish  the  portions  which  appertain  to  each  author,  as  most 
of  the  poems  were  joint  compositions;  and  as  Mr.  Canning  avow- 
ed none  of  them,  none  of  them  can  properly  be  cited  as  his.  Al- 
though he  did  not  authorize  the  assertion  of  his  claim  to  any  par- 
ticular piece,  he  did  not  disavow  his  connexion  with  the  work, 
nor  did  he  show  a  disposition  at  any  time  to  retract  any  of  the 
sentiments  contained  in  it.  He  adhered  constantly  to  a  declara- 
tion which  he  made  in  Parliament  in  1807,  "  that  he  felt  no  shame 
for  the  character  or  principles  of  the  Anti-Jacobin;  nor  any  other 
sorrow  for  the  share  he  had  had  in  it,  than  that  which  the  imper- 
fection of  his  pieces  was  calculated  to  inspire." 

From  his  entrance  into  Parliament,  and  even  before  it,  Mr. 
Canning  contributed  his  most  assiduous  and  earnest  endeavours  to 
the  glorious  effort  of  redeeming  humanity  from  the  disgrace,  and 
the  British  nation  from  the  deep  dishonour  of  the  Slave  Trade. 
He  was  one  of  the  "fearless  and  faithful  few,"  who  resisted  the 
powerful  interests  opposed  to  the  abolition  of  this  nefarious  traffic, 
at  a  period  when  there  was  the  greatest  merit — because  there  was 
then  the  greatest  difficulty — in  resistance.  At  the  outset  of  Mr. 
Canning's  public  life,  the  Slave  Trade  was  openly  and  boldly  up- 
held as  a  source  of  social  strength — as  a  legitimate  and  necessary 
means  of  national  wealth.  The  abolitionists  were  libelled  as  fan- 
atical enthusiasts;  amid  misrepresentations  of  motives,  and  cal- 
umnies of  conduct,  however,  he  fought  the  good  fight,  side  by 
side  of  the  benevolent  Wilberforce,  and  lived  to  rejoice  with  him, 
and  with  the  other  good  men  engaged  in  the  same  cause,  at  the 
triumoh   they  had   achieved   in   the  cause  of  afflicted  humanity 


xil  BIOGRAPHICAL,  SKETCH. 

The  consummation  of  this  great  work  of  comprehensive  benevo 
lence  did  not  take  place  until  1824,  when,  under  Mr.  Canning's 
auspices,  the  Slave  Trade  Piracy  Bill  was  passed,  which  made 
this  horrible  system  of  man-stealing  a  capital  felony.  Not  con- 
tented with  the  abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade,  Mr.  Canning  was 
engaged — and  it  was  among  the  last  of  his  legislative  efforts — in 
devising  safe,  politic,  and  efficient  measures  for  the  gradual  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  itself.  To  no  cause  was  he  more  anxiously  and 
usefully  devoted. 

The  union  of  G reat  Britain  and  IreJatuLwas  propounded  to  the 
English  Parliament  in  1799.  In  the  jliscussions  upon  this  most 
important  subject,  Mr.  Canning  took.  _a_ pj^mnnentpart.  His 
speeches  manifest  his  conviction  that  greatand  substantial  advan- 
tages  would  accrue  to  both  Ireland  and  EnglandTrom  the  measure, 
and  show,  also,  as  do  those  of  Mr.  Pitt,  that  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion was  held  out  in  terms  too  plain  to  be  mistaken  as  an  induce- 
ment to  the  Irish.  Many  long  years  elapsed  before  the  promise 
thus  made  was  performed,  and  imputations  of  the  most  discredit- 
able kind  have  been  cast,  in  consequence,  upon  the  two  statesmen; 
but,  although  they  may  not  have  acted  with  sufficient  energy  af- 
terwards, there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  insincere  in  their 
conduct.  Mr.  Canning  was  a  constant  advocate  of  the  claim,  and 
its  ultimate  triumph  was  doubtless  owing  greatly  to  his  exertions. 
The  ground  on  which  he  supported  it  was  that  of  expediency,  and 
not  of  abstract  right. 

In  July,  1800,  Mr.  Canning  was  married  to  Miss  Joan  Scott, 
daughter  and  co-heiress  of  General  Scott,  the  elder  sister  having 
married  a  short  time  previously  the  Marquis  of  Titchfield,  now 
Duke  of  Portland.  This  alliance  was  highly  advantageous  to  him. 
The  society  of  the  lady  rendered  him  happy;  her  fortune  made 
him  independent,  gave  weight  and  authority  to  his  talents,  and 
facilitated  his  advancement  to  those  high  stations  in  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  country,  to  which,  by  the  exercise  of  those  talents, 
he  had  vindicated  his  qualifications. 

Early  in  1801,  the_disappoinjjn&nt-Qf-Mr.  Pitt,  i«-aU  his  efforts 
to  induce  the  King  to.  -confirm  the  expectation  which  had  been 
held  out  to  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  at  The^eraT  of  the  union,  led 
to  the  resignation  of   that   minister  and  the  dissolution  of  his 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  XIII 

administration.  Several  poetic  effusions,  decrying  the  administra- 
tion of  Mr.  Addington,  who  succeeded  Mr.  Pitt  as  Premier,  were 
erroneously  attributed  to  Mr.  Canning.  With  the  exception  of 
the  song  "  The  Pilot  that  Weather'd  the  Storm,"  which  he  wrote 
for  the  first  meeting  of  the  Pitt  Club — an  association  which  he 
was  mainly  instrumental  in  forming — none  of  the  poetical  pieces 
on  political  subjects  that  appeared  at  this  period,  are  ascribable  to 
his  pen. 

Until  the  dissolution  of  Parliament  in  1S02,  Mr.  Canning  pur- 
sued a  sort  of  neutral  course.  He  abstained  altogether  from  par- 
liamentary effort,  with  the  exception  of  his  motion  concerning 
Trinidad.  He  could  not  reconcile  it  to  his  opinion,  to  support 
Mr.  Addington,  although  Mr.  Pitt  gave  him  bis  aid,  gnd  jvished 
his  friends  to  do  so  likewise.  But  on  the  other  hand,  having 
obtained  his  seat  through  Mr.  Pitt's  influence,  he  did  not  think  it 
right  to  oppose  Mr.  Addington  in  Parliament.  After  the  disso- 
lution, however,  when  he  acquired  a  seat  by  his  own  means,  he 
engaged  in  an  active  opposition.  On  the  renewal  of  hostilities 
wfth  France,  he  supported  Mr.  Pitt's  policy  of  vigorously  prose- 
cuting the  war;  but  even  in  reference  to  this  policy,  he  carefully 
distinguished  between  the  measures  and  the  men  who  recom- 
mended them  to  Parliament,  and  more  than  once  pretty  intelligi- 
bly suggested  that,  to  give  due  efficacy  to  these  measures,  it  was 
expedient  that  the  execution  of  them  should  be  entrusted  to  other 
hands. 

On  the  12th  of  October,  1801,  the  ratifications  of  the  prelimi- 
naries of  peace  which  were  the  basis  of  the  definitive  treaty  of 
Amiens,  were  exchanged  in  London  between  Lord  Hawkesbury 
and  M.  Otto.  In  the  discussions  which  took  place  in  reference 
to  those  measures,  Mr.  Canning  interfered  no  further  than  by  a 
slight  allusion  to  the  preliminaries,  in  the  exordium  of  a  speech  on 
the  cultivation  of  the  island  of  Trinidad,  a  subject  to  which  he  had 
devoted  his  early  attention,  with  a  view  of  promoting  his  favourite 
measure,  the  abolition  of  the  Slave  trade. 

In  1803,  Mr.  Canning  supported  a  series  of  resolutions,  moved 
by  Mr.  Patton,  containing  aggravated  charges  of  misconduct 
against  ministers.  In  his  speech  on  this  occasion,  he  declared,  in 
no  equivocal  terms,  that  the  ministers  were  unworthy  the  confi- 

B 


XIV  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

dence  of  the  country,  and  incapable  of  administering  its  affairs. 
This  speech  is  also  remarkable,  as  being  the  only  one  pronounced 
by  him  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Pitt.  It  was  calculated,  however, 
rather  to  conciliate  than  to  displease  his  friend,  by  the  deference 
with  which  he  differed  from  him,  and  the  manner  in  which  he 
pointed  him  out  as  the  person  best  qualified  at  that  crisis,  to  oc- 
cupy the  place  of  Mr.  Addington. 

The  part  which  Mr.  Canning  took  in  the  ensuing  session  of 
Parliament,  on  the  motion  for  inquiring  into  the  conduct  of  the 
Irish  government,  evinces  the  same  deep  interest  that  pervades 
all  his  speeches  in  questions  connected  with  the  misguided  policy 
pursued  towards  that  country. 

The  conduct  of  France,  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1S03, 
threatened  the  immediate  end  of  hostilities.     His  apprehension 
was  excited  by  the  military  and  naval  preparations  carried  on  in 
the  ports  of  Holland,  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  additional  pre- 
cautions on  the  part  of  England.     The  posture  of  European  poli- 
tics at  this  period,  is  fully  exhibited   in  Mr.  Canning's  speech  on 
the  negotiations  with  France.     The  opposition  to  the  existing 
administration,  and  the  public  distrust  in  their  measures,  increased 
with  the  increasing  difficulties  of  the  country.  On  the  3d  of  May, 
1804,  Mr.  Addington  resigned.    Consequent  upon  his  resignation, 
an  ineffectual  negotiation  was  carried  on  to  form  an  administration 
including  the  chiefs  of  the  three  political  parties,  Mr.  Pitt,  Mr. 
Fox,   and    Lord   Grenville.     At  length   an   administration   was 
formed,  in  which  Mr.  Pitt  resumed  the  premiership,  and  Mr. 
Canning  was  appointed  Treasurer  of  the  Navy.    As  such,  he  was 
obliged  to  vindicate  his  own  conduct  in  some  transactions  refer- 
red to  in  the  tenth  report  of  the  Navy  Commissioners,  during  the 
impeachment  of  Lord  Melville  for  misconduct  whilst  holding 
that  office.    Throughout,  the  inquiry  proved  that  he  was  free  from 
stain. 

The  death  of  Mr.  Pitt  on  the  23d  of  January,  1805,  was  soon 
followed  by  the  dissolution  of  the  administration  of  which  he  was 
the  head.  In  the  changes  incident  to  the  introduction  of  the  Whig 
party  into  power,  Mr.  Canning  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Sheridan 
in  the  office  of  Treasurer  of  the  Navy.  After  the  death  of  Mr. 
Pitt,  Mr.  Canning  acknowledged  no  leader,  as  he  stated  in  his 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  xv 

speech,  in  1812,  to  his  constituents  at  Liverpool,  when  he  took 
occasion  to  express  the  veneration  in  which  he  held  the  memory 
of  that  statesman,  and  the  emulous  fidelity  with  which  he  was  de- 
termined to  imitate  his  conduct  and  abide  by  his  principles. 

To  the  Whig  administration, — of  which  Mr.  Fox  was  the  real 
head,  although  he  had  chosen  the  post  of  Secretary  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  on  account  of  the  facilities  with  which,  he  presumed,  it 
would  present  him  in  bringing  the  negotiations  with  France  to 
to  an  amicable  conclusion,  Mr.  Canning  became  the  most  active 
and  leading  opponent.  He  commenced  a  series  of  severe  attacks 
upon  their  conduct  and  measures,  in  his  opposition  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  Lord  Ellenborough,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  King's 
Bench,  to  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet.  Of  the  expediency  and  impro- 
priety of  this  appointment  there  can  be  no  doubt;  and  indeed  it 
was  excused  at  the  time  at  which  it  took  place,  on  no  better  plea 
than  the  necessity  of  making  the  great  talents  of  that  nobleman 
available  for  the  defence  of  the  administration.  Mr.  Canning  also 
gave  a  very  earnest  and  effective  opposition  to  Mr.  Windham's 
celebrated  Limited  Service  Bill. 

In  April  1807,  on  the  dissolution  of  the  Whig  ministry,  in 
consequence  of  the  difference  between  the  King  and  the  principal 
members  of  it  upon  the  bill  introduced  into  Parliament  by  the 
latter  "  For  securing  to  all  His  Majesty's  Subjects  the  privilege 
of  serving  in  the  Army  and  Navy,"  the  Duke  of  Portland  was 
entrusted  with  the  formation  of  a  new  administration,  and  to  Mr. 
Canning  were  given  the  seals  of  the  Foreign  Office.  He  thus,, 
for  the  first  time,  became  a  Cabinet  Minister.  In  a  speech  deliv- 
ered soon  afterwards  upon  Mr.  Brand's  motion  relative  to  the 
changes  of  administration,  he  made  a  full  explanation  of  the  mo- 
tives of  his  conduct,  and  of  the  circumstances  under  which  he  ac- 
cepted office  at  this  period. 

The  season  in  which  the  new  ministry  came  into  power,  was 
one  of  unexampled  difficulty.  Just  after  the  battles  of  Austrelitz 
and  Jena,  Buonaparte  may  be  said  to  have  arrived  at  the  summit 
of  his  power.  Sweden  was  then  the  only  ally  of  England.  Den- 
mark professed  neutrality;  but  the  overgrown  power  of  France, 
and  the  subserviency  which  Denmark  might  feel  it  her  interest  to 
pay  to  a  power  whose  victorious  arms  she  could  not  resist,  ren- 


XVI  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

dered  her  neutrality,  if  not  insincere  in  its  profession,  at  least 
doubtful  as  to  its  continuance.  The  apprehension  of  this,  or  rather 
the  assurance  which  the  English  Government  obtained,  that  Den- 
mark was  included  in  a  confederacy  formed  by  Napoleon  of  all 
the  naval  powers  of  Europe  against  England,  was  the  motive  as- 
signed for  the  expedition  against  Copenhagen,  which  was  under- 
taken with  Mr.  Canning's  sanction,  and  is  supposed  to  have  been 
projected  by  him.  His  speeches  on  this  subject  are  mentioned  in 
terms  of  the  highest  commendation  by  those  who  heard  them,  but 
they  are  reported  less  satisfactorily  than  his  discourses  on  any 
other  important  question. 

On  Mr.  Canning  also,  as  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  devolved 
the  most  active,  important,  and  responsible  portion  of  the  duties 
connected  with  the  glorious  eruption  of  a  spirit  of  national  inde- 
pendence in  Spain.  For  his  services,  at  this  all-important  crisis 
in  the  mighty  struggle,  for  the  deliverance  of  the  nations  of  Eu- 
rope from  the  dominion  of  France,  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  all 
Europe,  indeed,  owe  him  a  debt  of  lasting  gratitude.  To  him 
belongs  the  merit  of  the  policy  that  aimed  and  directed  the  blow 
which  Lord  Wellington  so  efficaciously  struck,  and  the  credit 
of  having  supplied  by  the  vigour  of  his  measures  in  the  cabinet, 
the  means  which  enabled  that  distinguished  Captain  to  complete 
the  series  of  achievements  which  have  immortalized  his  name. 
To  this  portion  of  his  career.  Mr.  Canning  ever  afterwards  refer- 
red with  sentiments  of  pride  and  exultation.  In  allusion  to  it  on 
one  occasion  in  Parliament,  he  declared,  that  "  if  there  was  any 
part  of  his  political  life  in  which  he  gloried,  it  was,  that  in  the 
face  of  every  difficulty,  of  every  discouragement  and  prophecy  of 
failure,  his  had  been  the  hand  which  had  committed  England  to 
an  alliance  with  Spain,  to  an  alliance  with  a  country  robbed  of 
her  Government,  and--wfttrrmg,  for  the  time,  under  the  fangs  of  the 
Conqueror." 

During  the  long  course  of  diplomatic  negotiation  which  the 
state  of  the  relations  of  England  with  the  Continent,  in  the  years 
1807  and  1S08,  imposed  on  that  Government,  Mr.  Canning  was 
the  official  organ  by  whose  pen  the  communications  were  made. 
His  state  papers  furnish  the  most  unequivocal  proofs  of  the  solid- 
ity, clearness,  and  high  culture  of  his  mind.     His  answer,  espe- 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  xvn 

cially,  to  the  joint  application  of  the  Emperors  Alexander  and  Na- 
poleon, at  Erfurth,  to  England,  to  put  an  end  to  the  horrors  of 
war,  was  written  with  superior  talent. 

His  letters,  also,  to  our  minister,  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  Mr. 
Pinckney,  and  his  despatches  to  Mr.  Erskine,  the  English  min- 
ister at  Washington,  in  relation  to  the  difficulties  between  the  two 
countries  which  grew  out  of  the  affair  of  the  Chesapeake,  and  the 
restrictions  upon  neutral  trade  which  England  had  enacted,  are 
cited  as  master  pieces  of  diplomatic  correspondence.  But,  what- 
ever the  mere  ability  of  the  writer,  the  tone  of  them  was  too  harsh. 
The  sarcasm  and  rebuke  which  he  seemed  to  have  studied,  were 
fitted  to  excite  an  angry  and  resentful  spirit  in  the  American 
Government  and  people. 

In  the  inquiry  into  the  conduct  of  the  Duke  of  York,  which 
engrossed  the  attention  of  Parliament  and  of  the  public,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  session  of  1809,  Mr.  Canning  concluded  the  de- 
bates by  a  speech  of  great  length  and  ability,  in  defence  of  the 
Duke.  The  ingenuity  and  acuteness  with  which  he  commented 
on  various  parts  of  the  evidence,  indicated  how  successful  he 
might  have  been,  had  he  pursued  the  profession  of  the  law. 

The  descent  upon  the  island  of  Walcheren,  which  soon  after- 
wards engaged  the  attention  of  Parliament,  and  was  the  object  of 
such  severe  animadversion,  is  understood  to  have  been  planned 
and  projected  by  Lord  Castlereagh;  but  as  the  matter  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  cabinet,  and  approved  of  by  it,  Mr.  Canning  shared 
in  the  responsibility  of  the  measures  connected  with  that  unfortu- 
nate enterprise.  He  disclaimed,  however,  all  participation  in  the 
responsibility  of  having  approved  of  the  retention  of  the  island. 
The  decision,  indeed,  respecting  this  point,  was  taken  after  Mr. 
Canning  and  Lord  Castlereagh  had  resigned. 

The  cause  of  the  resignations  of  those  ministers  was  a  misun- 
derstanding between  them  which  occasioned  a  duel  on  the  21st 
of  September,  1809,  in  which,  after  two  shots,  Mr.  Canning  was 
slightly  wounded  in  the  thigh.  He  was  confined  to  his  house  for 
a  time,  but  was  sufficiently  recovered  to  attend  the  levee  on  the 
11th  of  October,  and  resign  the  seals  of  the  Foreign  Office.  At 
the  same  time  Lord  Castlereagh  resigned  those  of  the  War  De- 
partment. 

c  B2 


XVIII  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

The  Duke  of  Portland,  the  Premier,  having  resigned  as  well 
as  Mr.  Canning  and  Lord  Castlereagh,  a  new  Cabinet  was  formed, 
at  the  head  of  which  was  placed  Mr.  Percival,  who  united  in  him- 
self, as  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Addington  had  done  before  him,  the 
offices  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  and  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer. To  this  administration  Mr.  Canning  gave  no  active  op- 
position, but  he  steadfastly  adhered  to  the  principles  of  which  his 
political  conduct  had  hitherto  been  regulated  respecting  the  policy 
of  England  in  vigorously  prosecuting  the  mighty  struggle  in 
which  she  had  been  engaged  with  France.  In  the  year  after  his 
resignation,  public  attention  was  principally  occupied  by  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Regency  Resolutions,  occasioned  by  the  alienation 
of  the  mind  of  the  King;  and  in  this  he  took  a  very  earnest  part. 

In  the  course  of  the  ensuing  session,  1811,  Mr.  Canning  made 
his  celebrated  speech  on  the  report  of  the  Bullion  Committee,  one 
of  the  most  powerful  specimens  on  record  of  chaste  and  argumenta- 
tive eloquence.  That  portion  of  it  which  is  intended  to  prove  the 
depreciation  of  the  Bank  of  England  notes — a  position  broadly  and 
pertinaciously  denied  at  the  time  by  men  of  the  highest  public 
stations — is  practical,  perspicuous,  and  unanswerable.  The  sub- 
ject of  finance  was  one  on  which  it  was  not  customary  with 
Mr.  Canning  to  make  any  particular  effort,  as  he  had  not  devoted 
much  attention  to  it;  but  determining  to  make  himself  master  of 
it,  he  succeeded  in  a  manner  to  justify  a  common  remark  amongst 
those  of  his  friends  who  had  the  advantage  of  familiar  access  to 
him,  that  no  man  so  promptly,  and  with  so  much  effect,  directed 
the  powers  of  his  mind  to  any  new  subject  foreign  to  his  pursuits. 
The  speech  contains  most  of  what  has  ever  been  urged  in  Parlia- 
ment by  speakers  who  take  the  side  of  the  Bullionists,  stated  in 
the  best  manner,  and  recommended  by  all  the  captivating  attrac- 
tions of  just  sentiment,  polished  style,  and  copious  and  cogent 
illustration. 

The  assassination  of  Mr.  Percival  in  the  Lobby  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  on  the  11th  of  May,  1812,  by  a  fanatic  named  Belling- 
ham,  broke  up  the  ministry  of  which  he  was  the  chief;  and 
Lord  Wellesley  and  Mr.  Canning  were  commanded  by  the  Prince 
Regent  to  form  a  cabinet.  Their  negotiation  to  do  so,  however, 
failed,  as  did  also  that  of  Lord  Moira,  who  was  next  directed  to 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  XIX 

make  the  attempt.  The  task  was  then  entrusted  to  Lord  Liver- 
pool, who  made  an  offer  to  Mr.  Canning,  accompanied  with  an 
intimation  that  he  was  at  liberty  to  retain  and  express  his  well- 
known  sentiments  on  the  Catholic  Question;  but  he  deemed  him- 
self bound  to  refuse,  because  the  Earl's  government  then  professed 
to  oppose,  as  a  Government,  the  removal  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
disabilities.  Highly  creditable  as  was  this  conduct  to  his  consis- 
tency, it  is  yet  to  be  regretted  that,  by  declining  office  in  1S12, 
he  lost  one  of  the  most  glorious  opportunities  ever  presented  to  a 
minister  of  England,  the  opportunity  of  presiding  over  the  foreign 
relations  of  the  country  during  the  period  wherein  all  those  im- 
portant and  momentous  events  occurred,  which  crowded  into  a 
few  years  the  revolutions  and  changes  of  an  age. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  renewal  of  the  East  India  Company's 
Charter,  which  took  place  in  the  year  1812,  the  conduct  of  Mr. 
Canning  was  highly  gratifying  to  the  merchants  of  Liverpool. 
His  services  to  the  public  interests  on  this  occasion,  were  chiefly 
rendered  out  of  Parliament — in  communications  with  the  parties 
most  interested  in  and  conversant  with  the  subject,  and  in  a  close 
attendance  in  the  Select  Committee,  which  went  into  an  examina- 
tion of  evidence  at  great  length.  He  approved  of  proffering  such 
a  renewed  Charter  to  the  company  as  would  at  once  secure  to  them 
part  of  their  exclusive  privileges,  and  give  them  time  and  oppor- 
tunity to  prepare  themselves  for  the  loss  of  the  whole. 

At  the  close  of  the  session  of  1812,  Parliament  was  dissolved, 
and  at  the  general  election  which  ensued,  Mr.  Canning  was  invited 
to  become  a  candidate  for  the  representation  of  Liverpool.  The 
manner  of  the  invitation,  the  success  which  crowned  him  in  the  first 
arduous  contest,  in  which  the  pride  of  victory  was  enhanced  by 
being  obtained  over  so  formidable  an  opponent  as  Mr.  Brougham, 
and  the  connexion  which  he  at  this  time  formed  with  Liverpool, 
and  which  continued  for  many  years  to  be  a  source  of  reciprocal 
pride  and  honour  to  the  constituent  body  and  their  representative, 
Mr.  Canning  always  regarded  as  among  the  most  glorious  events 
of  his  public  life.  Not  the  least  gratifying  circumstance  in  the 
transaction  was  the  similitude  between  it  and  the  manner  in  which 
Mr.  Burke  became  the  representative  of  Bristol.  The  history  of 
Mr.  Canning's  connexion  with  Liverpool,  consists  of  a  series  of 


XX  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

successive  and  increasing  triumphs.  He  stood  four  times  as  a 
candidate,  and  was  each  time  elected  with  an  opposition  that  pro- 
gressively diminished  at  each  contest.  On  the  first  occasion  he 
had  four  antagonists,  and  his  majority  over  the  one  nearest  to  him, 
Mr.  Brougham,  was  500.  The  second  election  took  place  after 
his  appointment  to  the  Presidentship  of  the  Board  of  Controul,  in 
1816;  he  was  returned  after  a  struggle  of  three  days,  by  the 
retirement  of  his  opponent,  Mr.  Leyland,  whose  name,  indeed, 
had  been  set  up  by  the  hostile  party  in  spite  of  his  declaration 
that  he  was  not  desirous  to  serve.  At  the  third,  in  1818,  some 
curious  electioneering  manoeuvres  were  resorted  to  by  his  oppo- 
nents, but  they  were  signally  defeated;  and  at  the  fourth,  in  1820, 
there  was  scarcely  the  shadow  of  opposition.  On  every  occasion 
on  which  he  visited  Liverpool,  the  most  flattering  marks  of  atten- 
tion were  lavished  on  him.  Public  dinners,  aquatic  excursions, 
and  costly  entertainments  were  given  to  welcome  him.  A  club 
was  instituted  in  honour  of  him  called  "The  Canning  Club."  This 
friendly  intercouse  between  the  parties,  subsisted  without  inter- 
ruption from  the  commencement  of  their  connexion  in  1812,  until 
its  close  in  1S22.  On  his  expected  departure  from  England,  to 
assume  the  Government  of  India,  in  the  latter  year,  a  valuable 
piece  of  plate  was  presented  to  him  by  his  constituents;  and  a 
deputation  from  the  associated  commercial  bodies  of  the  port, 
waited  on  and  presented  him  an  address,  expressive  of  the  high 
sense  they  entertained  of  the  services  which  he  had  rendered  to 
them,  during  the  period  that  he  had  been  their  representative  in 
Parliament.  After  his  death,  the  inhabitants  of  Liverpool  further 
testified  their  admiration  of  him,  by  a  liberal  subscription  for 
erecting  a  monument  to  his  memory. 

In  1814,  Mr.  Canning  was  appointed  Ambassador  to  the  Court 
of  Lisbon.  The  last  speech  which  he  made  before  repairing 
thither,  was  on  "  Foreign  Treaties,"  It  contains  a  proud  retro- 
spect of  the  events  of  the  great  struggle  which,  by  the  entrance  of 
the  British  army  into  the  south  of  France,  and  that  of  the  com- 
bined forces  into  the  north,  after  the  decisive  battle  of  Leipsic, 
seemed  about  to  be  brought  to  the  most  triumphant  conclusion,  as 
well  as  an  eloquent  and  exulting  congratulation  of  the  House  and 
the  country  on  the  glorious  results  of  the  perseverance  and  spirit 


BIOGRAPHICAL,  SKETCH.  XXI 

of  the  British  people.  The  main  cause  of  Mr.  Canning's  going 
to  Lisbon  was  the  dangerous  illness  of  his  eldest  son,  for  the 
preservation  of  whose  life  a  trial  of  the  climate  of  that  city  was 
recommended  by  the  physicians.  To  his  acceptance  of  the  em- 
bassy, however,  objections  were  made  on  the  ground,  in  the  first 
place,  of  his  consenting  to  receive  a  situation  subordinate  to  Lord 
Castlereagh,  and,  in  the  second,  because  the  salary  and  allowances 
were,  it  was  asserted,  far  beyond  the  requisite  expenses.  It  was 
even  contended  that  the  contingent  event,  the  return  of  the  Royal 
Family  of  Portugal  from  the  Brazils,  for  which  the  embassy  was 
provided,  was  in  reality  never  contemplated,  and  that  the  whole 
transaction  was  "  a  job,"  instituted  to  provide  a  comfortable  retreat 
for  him,  and  conciliate  his  support  of  the  existing  Government. 
These  charges  were  preferred  in  no  qualified  terms  by  Mr.  Lamb- 
ton,  in  a  speech  introductory  to  a  motion  on  the  subject.  To  these 
Mr.  Canning  made  an  eloquent  and  indignant  reply,  in  which  he 
repelled  the  unworthy  imputations  thrown  upon  him,  in  a  manner 
that  brought  conviction  to  every  mind.  He  was  also  accused  of 
prolonging  his  sojourn  there  beyond  the  period  that  there  was  any 
ascertained  ground  for  his  continuing  it.  This  he  answered  in  a 
speech  to  his  constituents  at  Liverpool,  in  1816,  by  stating  the 
fact  that  he  did  not  continue  in  a  public  capacity  up  to  the  period 
of  his  leaving  Lisbon,  but  had,  six  months  previously,  resigned,  on 
learning  the  Prince  Regent's  determination  not  to  return  imme- 
diately to  his  European  dominions. 

Mr.  Canning's  return  to  England  was  in  the  early  part  of  the 
year  1816.  During  his  absense,  the  battle  of  Waterloo  had  put  an 
end  to  the  career  of  Napoleon.  He  stopped  a  few  days  at  Bour- 
deaux  on  his  way  home,  and  received  a  splendid  public  entertain- 
ment from  the  merchants  of  that  place.  Shortly  after  his  arrival 
in  England,  a  vacancy  occurred  in  the  Presidency  of  the  Board 
of  Controul,  by  the  death  of  the  Earl  of  Buckinghamshire,  to 
which,  on  the  intimation  of  the  Prince  Regent,  Mr.  Canning 
succeeded. 

In  the  session  of  the  Parliament  of  1S17,  the  Habeas  Corpus 
Suspension  Bill  and  the  Seditious  Meetings'  Bill  were  passed,  in 
consequence  of  the  agitation  and  disaffection  that  pervaded  the 
country,  growing  out  of  the  distress  which  was  the  natural  result 


XXII  BIOGRAPHICAL,  SKETCH. 

of  the  long  protracted  war  just  concluded.  The  prominent  part 
which  Mr.  Canning  took  in  effecting  the  passage  of  those  bills, 
rendered  him  very  unpopular  with  the  Opposition,  who  deemed 
such  extraordinary  measures  stronger  than  the  case  demanded; 
and  on  several  occasions  attacks  were  made  upon  him  in  conse- 
quence, the  severest  of  which  was  put  forth  in  the  shape  of  an 
anonymous  pamphlet  shortly  after  his  speech  on  the  Indemnity 
Bill  in  1818.  Some  remarks  also  of  Sir  Francis  Burdett  in  rela- 
tion to  him,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Chairman  of  a  Reform 
dinner,  had  nearly  occasioned  a  duel;  but  the  matter,  fortunately, 
was  satisfactorily  adjusted. — The  speech  of  Mr.  Canning  at  the 
opening  of  the  session  of  1819,  contains  a  powerful  commentary 
on  the  proceedings  and  character  of  the  violent  meetings  which 
were  held  throughout  the  country,  particularly  the  one  at  Man- 
chester, which  was  dispersed  by  the  yeomanry  with  the  loss  of 
several  lives.  During  the  session  six  bills,  having  for  their  object 
the  repression  of  the  prevalent  disaffection,  were  earnestly  sup- 
ported by  Mr.  Canning,  and  passed,  though  with  great  opposition. 

In  January,  1820,  George  III.  died  ;  and  George  IV.  had 
scarcely  ascended  the  throne,  when  a  fresh  subject  of  agitation 
was  created  by  the  arrival  of  Queen  Caroline  in  England.  Mr. 
Canning  was  indebted  to  her  for  many  acts  of  civility  and  kind- 
ness, and  he  had  been  a  party  to  the  advice  given  to  her  by  her 
friends  in  1S14,  which  she  had  followed,  of  residing  abroad. 
When,  therefore,  it  was  resolved  to  institute  an  inquiry  into  her 
conduct,  he  resigned  his  place  as  President  of  the  Board  of  Con- 
troul,  deeming  himself  bound  both  by  gratitude  and  the  circum- 
stance of  his  having  been  her  adviser  on  a  somewhat  similar 
inquiry  in  1805,  to  abstain  from  bearing  the  share  which  his 
ministerial  duty  would  have  assigned  him  in  promoting  the  pro- 
secution. His  conduct  on  this  occasion,  according  to  universal 
consent,  was  marked  by  the  most  perfect  correctness  and  delicacy 
of  feeling. 

On  his  retirement,  a  letter  was  addressed  to  him  by  the  Direct- 
ors of  the  East  India  Company,  which  furnished  a  flattering  tri- 
bute to  his  talents  and  integrity;  and  at  a  meeting  of  the  Court  of 
Proprietors  of  the  Company,  a  resolution  was  unanimously  passed, 
concurring  in  the  sentiments  conveyed  by  the  Directors  to  him, 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  xxill 

and  emphatically  expressive  of  their  high  admiration  for  his  abili- 
ties, and  their  grateful  sense  of  his  services. 

Early  in  the  Spring  of  this  year,  Mr.  Canning  sustained  a  severe 
domestic  calamity  in  the  loss  of  his  eldest  son,  George  Charles 
Canning,  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  his  age.  The  following  beauti- 
ful epitaph  was  written  by  the  afflicted  father,  and  inscribed  upon 
an  elegant  monument  in  the  burying  ground  of  Kensington: 


.. 


EPITAPH. 


"GEORGE  CHARLES  CANNING, 

"  Eldest  Son  of 

"The  Right  Honourable  GEORGE  CANNING,  and  JOAN  SCOTT, 

his  Wife; 
"  Born  April  25,  1801.— Died  March  31,  1820, 

"Though  short  thy  span,  God's  unimpeach'd  decrees, 
Which  made  that  shorten'd  span  one  long  disease, 
Yet,  merciful  in  chastening,  gave  thee  scope 
For  mild,  redeeming  virtues,  Faith  and  Hope; 
Meek  Resignation;  pious  Charity ; 
And,  since  this  world  was  not  the  world  for  thee, 
Far  from  thy  path  removed,  with  partial  care, 
Strife,  Glory,  Gain,  and  Pleasure's  flowery  snare, 
Bade  Earth's  temptations  pass  thee  harmless  by, 
And  fix'd  on  Heaven  thine  unaverted  eye ! 
Oh !  mark'd  from  birth,  and  nurtured  for  the  skies ! 
In  youth,  with  more  than  learning's  wisdom,  wise ! 
As  sainted  martyrs,  patient  to  endure  ! 
Simple  as  unwean'd  infancy,  and  pure? 
Pure  from  all  stain,  (save  that  of  human  clay, 
Which  Christ's  atoning  blood  has  washed  away!) 
By  mortal  sufferings  now  no  more  oppress'd, 
Mount,  sinless  Spirit,  to  thy  destined  rest! 
While  I — reversed  our  nature's  kindlier  doom — 
Pour  forth  a  father's  sorrow  on  thy  tomb." 

During  the  two  subsequent  years  (1821-22)  Mr.  Canning  took 
little  part  in  public  affairs.  He  visited  France  and  Italy  with  his 
family,  but  resided  principally  at  Paris,  where,  free  from  the 
tumult  of  party,  he  moved  in  the  chief  circles  of  literary  and 
polished  society  which  that  capital  contains.  At  this  time,  he 
saw  much  of  Chateaubriand,  with  whom  he  formed  a  friendship. 


XXIV  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

which  some  differences  of  a  political  nature  afterwards  interrupted. 
He  left  Paris  in  1821,  expressly  for  the  purpose  of  attending  Par- 
liament, in  order  to  support  the  Bill  for  the  Removal  of  Roman 
Catholic  Disabilities.  His  speeches  in  the  year  1822,  on  Lord 
John  Russell's  motion  for  Reform,  and  on  his  own  measure  for 
the  relief  of  the  Catholic  Peers,  are  among  the  most  finished  spe- 
cimens of  his  eloquence.  At  the  time  of  their  delivery,  he  was 
on  the  eve  of  his  departure  for  a  foreign  destination,  and  they 
were  manifestly  elaborate  efforts,  intended  to  be  parting  admoni- 
tions to  his  country  on  the  two  great  questions  of  which  they 
treat. 

In  the  early  part  of  1S22,  the  Directors  of  the  East  India  Com- 
pany had  chosen  Mr.  Canning  to  fill  the  situation  of  Governor 
General  of  Fort  William,  in  the  Presidency  of  Bengal,  the  seat 
of  the  Supreme  Government  of  British  India.  Previous  to  his 
intended  departure,  he  paid  a  farewell  visit  to  Liverpool,  where 
public  entertainments  on  a  scale  of  the  most  munificent  hospitality 
were  given  to  him,  besides  a  valuable  piece  of  plate.  Just,  how- 
ever, as  he  was  about  to  embark,  the  death  of  the  Marquis  of 
Londonderry  created  a  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Secretary  of 
Foreign  Affairs;  and  the  public  eye  was  immediately  turned  to- 
wards Mr.  Canning  as  the  person  best  qualified  to  fill  it.  The 
expression  of  public  sentiment  was  responded  to  by  the  King; 
and,  early  in  September,  on  the  return  of  the  latter  from  Scotland, 
where  he  had  been  on  a  visit  at  the  time  of  Lord  Londonderry's 
death,  the  Seals  of  the  Foreign  Office  were  presented  to  Mr. 
Canning. 

The  war  subsequently  waged  by  France  against  Spain,  for  the 
purpose  of  re-establishing  the  throne  of  Ferdinand  on  the  ruins 
of  the  Cortes,  was  meditated  by  her  at  this  period,  and  urged  by 
her  representative,  M.  de  Montmorency,  in  the  Congress  of  Verona 
then  just  assembled,  upon  the  different  Powers.  England  was 
the  only  one  which  objected  to  the  proposed  interference,  the 
instructions  communicated  by  Mr.  Canning  to  the  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington being,  to  declare  "  that  to  any  such  interference,  come 
what  may,  His  Majesty  will  not  be  a  party."  The  speeches  which 
Mr.  Canning  made  in  the  session  of  1823,  the  first  in  laying  before 
Parliament  the  diplomatic  papers  relative  to  the  negotiation  on 
d  C 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  xxv 

the  state  of  affairs  between  France  and  Spain,  and  the  second  at 
the  close  of  a  debate  on  the  same  subject,  are  alike  remarkable  for 
the  clearness  with  which  he  explains  all  the  intricacies  of  a  very 
complicated  subject,  and  the  ability  with  which  he  applies  to  in- 
dividual cases  the  great  principles  of  national  law,  and  the  eternal 
ones  of  public  justice.  There  has  rarely  been  an  occasion  on 
which  the  anxiety  of  the  English  public  for  a  full  justification  of 
a  great  measure,  involving  the  national  interests  and  honour,  was 
so  completely  satisfied  and  allayed,  as  on  the  propriety  of  the 
policy  pursued  by  Mr.  Canning  in  reference  to  this  subject. 

In  this  year,  also,  the  recognition  of  Spanish  American  Inde- 
pendence by  England,  a  movement  which  was  planned  and  effect- 
ed by  Mr.  Canning,  shed  a  lustre  upon  his  name  which  the  friends 
of  freedom  will  never  allow  to  be  extinguished.  A  formal  com- 
munication, however,  of  the  circumstance,  was  not  sent  to  the 
foreign  ministers  accredited  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  until  1825. 
In  it  he  stated,  "that  in  consequence  of  the  repeated  failures  of  the 
applications  of  His  Majesty's  Government  to  the  Court  of  Spain, 
relative  to  the  recognition  of  the  independent  States  of  Spanish 
America,  His  Majesty  had  come  to  a  determination  to  appoint 
Charges  des  Affaires  to  the  States  of  Colombia,  Mexico,  and 
Buenos  Ayres;  and  to  enter  into  treaties  of  commerce  with  those 
respective  States  on  the  basis  of  the  recognition  of  their  indepen- 
dence." 

It  was  in  the  course  of  the  session  of  1823,  that  Mr.  Canning, 
in  his  answer  to  Mr.  Brougham,  evinced  an  irascible  temperament, 
and  betrayed  the  little  control  which  he  had  in  forbearing  from 
the  most  vehement  expression  when  exasperatedby  a  disreputable 
imputation  being  cast  upon  him.  The  circumstances  out  of  which  it 
arose  were  these:  On  one  of  the  frequent  discussions  which  took 
place  relative  to  the  affairs  of  Spain,  Lord  Folkestone,  in  a  speech 
of  unqualified  condemnation  of  Mr.  Canning's  policy  on  this  ques- 
tion, accused  the  Foreign  Secretary  of  "  truckling  to  France." 
Mr.  Canning  replied  to  him  in  the  debate  of  the  same  evening, 
and,  after  assuring  the  noble  Lord  that  he  would  never  truckle  to 
him,  pronounced  upon  the  speech  of  Lord  Folkestone,  and  the 
manner  of  its  delivery,  a  sentence  of  the  bitterest  invective  that 
perhaps  ever  escaped  him  in  Parliament.  "  The  Lacedaemonians," 
d  C 


XXVI  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

said  he,  "  were  in  the  habit  of  deterring  their  children  from  the 
vice  of  intoxication,  by  occasionally  exhibiting  their  slaves  in  a 
state  of  disgusting  inebriety.  But,  Sir,  there  is  a  moral  as  well  as 
a  physical  intoxication.  Never  before  did  I  behold  so  perfect  a 
personification  of  the  character  which  I  have  somewhere  seen 
described  as  '  exhibiting  the  contortions  of  the  Sybil  without  her 
inspiration.'     Such  was  the  nature  of  the  noble  lord's  speech." 

On  a  subsequent  evening,  17th  April,  1823,  during  a  conversa- 
tion in  the  House  of  Commons,  which  preceded  the  discussion  of 
the  Catholic  Question,  Mr.  Brougham  pronounced  a  severe  philip- 
pic against  the  Foreign  Secretary,  in  which,  after  insinuating  very 
intelligibly  that  Mr.  Canning,  on  accepting  office,  had  entered  into 
a  compromise  with  Lord  Eldon  to  postpone  and  waive  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Catholic  Question,  he  added,  "And  is  it  the  Right 
Hon.  Gentleman  then  who  talks  of  not  truckling  to  my  Noble 
Friend  (Lord  Folkestone) — he — who  has  himself  exhibited  the 
most  incredible  specimen  of  monstrous  truckling,  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  office,  which  the  whole  history  of  political  tergiver- 
sation can  furnish."  At  this  moment,  Mr.  Canning,  whose  chang- 
ing features  for  the  few  preceding  minutes  were  developing  the 
deep  agitation  of  his  mind,  rose,  and  said  emphatically,  "  Sir,  that 
is  false."  This  abrupt  and  most  unexpected  interruption  entranced 
the  House  for  some  moments  in  amazement.  Mr.  Brougham 
was  restrained  by  his  friends  from  leaving  the  House  immediately. 
The  Sergeant-at-Arms  was  summoned  to  attend — a  motion  was 
made  and  withdrawn,  that  Mr.  Canning  and  Mr.  Brougham  should 
be  taken  into  custody — explanation  succeeded  to  explanation — but 
all  that  followed  the  interruption  by  the  Right  Honourable  Secre- 
tary— the  moment  of  intense  interest — was  but  as  "  the  pattering 
of  rain  after  a  thunder  storm."  The  fury  of  the  bolt  was  spent — 
and  with  its  exhausted  rage  expired  the  awe  and  the  interest 
awakened  by  the  shock.  The  result  was,  that,  after  mutual  and 
suitable  explanations  on  both  sides,  Mr.  Canning  and  Mr.  Brough- 
am, with  perfect  propriety  and  honour  to  themselves,  in  the  esti- 
mation of  the  House  and  of  the  country,  agreed  "to  think  no  more 
about  the  matter." 

One  excuse,  and  one  only,  may  be  suggested  for  the  conduct 
of  Mr.  Canning  on  this  occasion — namely,  the  spirit-stirring  pro- 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  XXVII 

vocation  to  intemperate  retort  which  was  conveyed  in  the  lan- 
guage— and  even  less  in  the  language  than  in  the  manner  of  Mr. 
Brougham.  The  sarcastic  tone — the  vehement  gesture — the  deep 
and  disdainful  denouncement  expressed  in  the  whole  of  his  deliv- 
ery of  this  passage  of  his  speech,  cannot  be  contained  within  the 
limits  of  any  description. 

During  the  sessions  of  1S23,  1824,  1825,  and  1826,  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Abolition  of  Slavery  came  under  frequent  discussion 
in  Parliament.  On  this  question,  Mr.  Canning  advocated  a  mid- 
dle and  mediatorial  course  between  contending  parties — the  advo- 
cates of  the  extreme  principles  of  immediate  abolition  on  the  one 
side,  and  of  perpetual  slavery  on  the  other.  He  pledged  the  House 
of  Commons  to  resolutions  for  the  gradual  Amelioration  of  the 
Condition  of  the  Slave  Population  in  the  West  Indies;  and  in  sev- 
eral speeches,  especially  in  a  most  eloquent  one  on  the  16th  of 
March,  1824,  he  developed  his  own  views  and  those  of  the  Gov- 
ernment on  this  momentous  measure. 

The  embarrassed  state  into  which  the  currency  of  England  was 
put  in  1825  by  the  failure  of  numerous  and  extravagant  speculations 
in  which  a  vast  capital  had  been  embarked,  engaged  the  attention  of 
Parliament  at  its  meeting.  Mr.  Canning  with  his  wonted  ability, 
pursued  the  course  of  its  variation,  exposed  the  nature  of  the  em- 
barrassments, and  propounded  the  expediency  of  the  measure 
adopted  by  Parliament  for  relieving  them.  The  session  of  1826 
passed  over  without  any  business  of  momentous  interest  to  call 
forth  the  powers  of  Mr.  Canning,  with  the  exception  of  the  ques- 
tion of  the  currency,  and  the  discussion  on  the  Silk  trade.  His 
speech  in  support  of  Mr.  Huskisson's  measure  relative  to  that 
important  branch  of  our  manufactures,  though  short,  was  remark- 
ably effective.  To  the  above  exception  should  be  added  an  im- 
portant speech  of  Mr.  Canning  on  a  motion  of  Mr.  Brougham, 
pledging  the  House  early  in  the  ensuing  session  to  take  into  its 
most  serious  consideration,  such  measures  as  might  be  calculated 
to  carry  into  effect  the  recommendation  of  the  Government  and  of 
the  House  of  Commons  to  the  Colonial  Legislatures,  to  ameliorate 
the  condition  of  the  Slaves  in  the  Colonies. 

At  the  close  of  the  summer  of  this  year,  Mr.  Canning  paid  a 
visit  to  his  friend,  Lord  Grenville,  at  Paris.     He  was  received  in 


XXVIII  BIOGRAPHICAL    SKETCH. 

that  capital  with  all  the  demonstrations  of  respect  due  to  his  great 
talents,  his  lofty  fame,  and  eminent  station.  The  French  minis- 
ters, the  most  distinguished  members  of  the  nobility  and  of  the 
higher  classes  of  society  in  Paris,  invited  him  to  sumptuous  enter- 
tainments; even  the  court  rules  of  etiquette,  which  forbade  a  sub- 
ject to  dine  in  company  with  the  royal  tenant  of  the  Thuilleries, 
were  dispensed  with  in  his  favour,  and  Mr.  Canning  had  the  hon- 
our, to  use  the  technical  phrase,  of  dining  with  the  King  and 
Royal  Family  of  France.  The  daily  press  of  Paris  noticed  his 
movements,  and  the  unassuming  and  frank  affability  of  his  address 
conciliated  towards  him  marked  respect  wherever  he  went. 

In  the  Parliament  of  1826  Mr.  Canning  made  the  speech  on 
the  affairs  of  Portugal,  which  is  deemed  the  master-piece  of  his 
eloquence.  It  was  occasioned  by  the  circumstance  of  the  Portu- 
guese Ambassador  in  London,  the  Marquis  de  Palmella,  making 
a  formal  application  to  the  English  Government  for  military  as- 
sistance to  repel  from  Portugal  the  elements  of  strife  with  which 
Spain  was  menacing  that  kingdom,  in  consequence  of  her  hatred 
of  the  constitutional  form  which  then  subsisted.  The  English 
Government  being  pledged  both  by  ancient  and  modern  treaties 
to  the  defence  of  Portugal,  a  message  from  the  King  was  presented 
to  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  expressing  his  confidence  that  they 
would  enable  him  to  maintain  good  faith  with  his  ancient  ally. 
It  was  in  moving  the  Address  in  reply  to  this  message,  that  Mr. 
Canning  made  his  celebrated  speech,  in  which  he  clearly  describ- 
ed the  various  obligations  by  treaty  into  which  England  had  en- 
tered with  Portugal,  and  enforced  their  observance.  Its  eloquence 
and  power  elicited  a  high  eulogy  from  Mr.  Brougham,  in  which 
he  declared  his  reliance  "  on  those  sound,  enlightened,  liberal, 
and  truly  English  principles;  principles  worthy  of  our  best  times, 
and  of  our  most  distinguished  statesmen,  which  now  govern  the 
Councils  of  this  Country  in  her  foreign  policy,  and  inspire  the 
eloquence  of  the  Right  Honourable  Secretary  with  a  decree  of 
fervour,  energy,  and  effect,  extraordinary  and  unprecedented  in 
this  House — unprecedented  (I  can  give  it  no  higher  praise)  even  in 
the  eloquence  of  the  Right  Honourable  Gentleman."  Troops 
were  sent  to  Portugal,  and  the  result  of  the  measure  fully  vindi- 
cated its  propriety  and  wisdom. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  xxix 

This  was  almost  the  last  important  measure  which  Mr.  Canning 
originated  during  the  time  that  he  presided  over  the  foreign  policy 
of  his  country.  But,  besides  the  measures  which  he  may  be  said 
to  have  accomplished  by  the  influence  of  his  personal  authority, 
as  falling  within  the  sphere  of  his  immediate  duties,  many  impor- 
tant changes  and  improvements,  during  the  period  that  he  was 
leading  minister  in  the  House  of  Commons,  were  introduced  into 
various  branches  of  the  commercial  policy,  as  well  as  into  the 
practice  and  structure  of  the  judicial  system  of  England.  These 
measures,  as  far  as  regarded  the  commerce  of  the  country,  were 
recommended  to  Parliament  by  Mr.  Huskisson,  to  whom  Mr. 
Canning  conceded  "the  undivided  glory"  of  them,  whilst  he  avow- 
ed his  readiness  to  share  the  responsibility  of  sanctioning  and 
approving  them.  The  principle  of  all  these  measures  was  the 
change  from  the  restrictive  system  of  former  times,  to  one  of  an 
enlarged,  liberal,  and  comprehensive  character. 

On  the  17th  of  February,  Lord  Liverpool  experienced  an 
attack  of  apoplexy  so  severe  as  to  preclude  all  hope  that  he  would 
ever  recover  strength  for  the  efficient  discharge  of  his  ministerial 
functions.  The  public  eye  in  consequence  was  directed  towards 
a  successor  to  him  in  his  high  office;  but  as  long  as  a  possible  hope 
of  his  recovery  remained,  the  King's  personal  regard  for  him,  as 
well  as  that  of  all  his  colleagues,  induced  a  postponement  of  any 
new  appointment.  The  utmost  anxiety  prevailed  in  the  public 
mind  in  reference  to  the  subject.  Rumours  and  speculations  of  all 
kinds  were  rife;  but  amid  the  contending  influences  and  claims  of 
persons,  the  most  prevalent  and  popular  expression  of  feeling  was 
decidedly  in  favour  of  Mr.  Canning.  His  political  experience, 
his  talents,  the  dominant  influence  which  he  had  exercised  for 
some  time  in  the  Cabinet,  all  pointed  him  out  as  the  person  whose 
pretensions  were  the  most  potent.  The  public  expectation  was 
not  disappointed.  On  the  12th  of  April,  suspense  was  terminated 
by  the  motion  of  Mr.  Wynn  in  the  House  of  Commons,  "  that  a 
new  writ  be  issued  for  the  Borough  of  Newport,  (Isle  of  Wight,) 
in  consequence  of  Mr.  Canning  having  accepted  the  office  of  First 
Commissioner  of  the  Treasury."  The  announcement  was  received 
with  loud  cheers  by  the  House. 

When  the  King  first  laid  his  commands  upon  Mr.  Canning  to 

C  2 


xxx  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

form  an  administration,  he  enjoined  upon  him  the  placing  of  some 
one  in  Lord  Liverpool's  situation,  professing  that  statesman's 
opinions  on  the  Catholic  Question — a  requisition  with  which  he 
thought  that  a  due  regard  to  his  own  claims  to  the  Premiership, 
and  to  the  ascendency  of  those  councils  in  matters  of  policy  to 
which  he  was  pledged,  would  not  permit  him  to  comply.  He 
accordingly  declined  the  royal  invitation,  and  tendered  his  own 
resignation  of  office,  to  afford  the  King  an  opportunity  of  con- 
structing a  Cabinet  united  in  opposition  to  the  Catholic  Question. 
After  several  interviews,  however,  between  the  monarch  and  the 
minister,  the  condition  which  prevented  the  latter  from  under- 
taking the  task  of  forming  an  administration  was  removed,  and  its 
construction  was  left  to  his  own  unfettered  action. 

His  difficulties,  however,  did  not  end  here.  Within  twenty- 
four  hours  after  his  appointment  to  be  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury, 
seven  of  his  colleagues — the  Duke  of  Wellington,  Lord  Eldon, 
Lord  Bathurst,  Lord  Melville,  Lord  Bexley,  Lord  Westmoreland, 
and  Mr.  Peel — resigned  their  respective  offices.  The  reason 
which  they  gave  for  this  proceeding,  was  the  policy  which  Mr. 
Canning  would  introduce  into  the  administration  in  reference  to 
the  Catholic  Question,  of  which  they  had  always  been  the  oppo- 
nents; but  allegations  were  thrown  out  that  motives  of  rivalry 
and  ambition  had  also  actuated  their  conduct,  at  least  that  of  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  and  Mr.  Peel,  the  two  most  prominent  se- 
ceders.  The  members  of  the  former  Cabinet  who  remained  with 
Mr.  Canning,  were  Lord  Harrowby,  Mr.  Huskisson,  Mr.  Robin- 
son, and  Mr.  Wynn.  It  was  a  fortunate  circumstance  for  the  new 
minister,  that  the  embarrassment  in  which  he  was  placed  occurred 
on  the  eve  of  the  Easter  recess,  so  that  the  interval  of  a  fortnight 
was  afforded  him,  to  supply  the  places  that  had  been  vacated,  and 
to  complete  the  necessary  arrangements  for  the  formation  of  an 
Executive  Government.  Of  this  period  of  customary  suspension 
from  public  business,  ample  and  advantageous  use  was  made. 
Negotiations  were  opened  with  the  leading  members  of  the  oppo- 
sition, between  whom  and  Mr.  Canning  a  daily  approximation  in 
principle  in  almost  all  measures  relating  to  the  commercial,  in- 
ternal, and  foreign  policy  of  the  country,  rendered  the  formation 
of  a  league  of  friendship  and  co-operation  a  task  of  easy  perform- 


BIOGRAPHICAL    SKETCH.  XXXI 

ance.  At  the  meeting  of  Parliament  most  of  the  vacancies  were 
filled  up,  though  some  of  them,  it  was  understood,  were  only- 
occupied  provisionally.  The  explanations  of  Mr.  Peel  and  Mr. 
Canning  on  the  breaking  up  of  the  former  ministry,  and  the  diffi- 
culties which  had  obstructed  the  formation  of  a  new  one,  excited 
great  attention  throughout  the  House,  and  throughout  the  country; 
and  both  were  generally  deemed  full,  explicit,  and  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Canning  was  now  placed  upon  the  loftiest  eminence  to 
which  his  ambition  could  aspire  ;  but  never  was  there  a  more 
affecting  and  impressive  verification  of  the  old  poet's  melancholy 
ejaculation — '  Oh  curas  hominum!' — than  his  fate  afforded.  He 
had  reached  the  pinnacle,  but  his  strength  was  exhausted  in 
climbing  to  it — and  he  reached  it  but  to  die.  The  only  political 
act  which  signalized  his  administration,  of  which  he  was  the  chief 
promoter,  was  the  treaty  of  London,  signed  on  the  6th  of  July, 
combining  England,  France,  and  Russia,  in  a  determination  to 
protect  the  Christians  of  Greece  from  the  merciless  oppression  of 
the  Ottoman  Porte — an  act  not  unworthy  to  close  the  glorious 
drama  of  his  career.  He  had  also  given  notice  of  an  intention  to 
move  for  a  Committee  of  Finance  in  the  next  session  of  Parlia- 
ment, to  be  formed  on  the  most  liberal  and  extensive  basis,  in- 
cluding members  of  all  parties;  and  had  introduced  a  Bill  for 
amending  the  Corn  Laws,  which  was  defeated  in  the  House  of 
Lords. 

Before  his  appointment  to  the  Premiership,  Mr.  Canning's 
constitution  had  been  shattered  by  illness;  his  countenance  was 
sicklied  o'er  with  a  pallid  hue,  and  his  form  bent  as  if  under 
premature  old  age.  The  duties  and  anxieties,  therefore,  incident 
to  his  station,  were  of  themselves  sufficient  to  increase  in  a  serious 
degree  the  weakness  of  his  frame;  but  to  these  were  added  the 
irritation  occasioned  by  perhaps  the  most  disgraceful  opposition 
on  record.  A  character  of  personal  hostility  and  rancour  was 
given  to  it,  which  was  well  calculated,  in  his  debilitated  state,  to 
excite  his  natural  sensitiveness  to  a  dangerous  pitch;  and  the  effect 
which  it  had  upon  him  was  greater  than  from  its  intrinsic  force, 
either  in  intelligence  or  power  of  any  description,  it  was  entitled 
to  produce.  In  vain  he  boldly  and  repeatedly  challenged  bis 
adversaries  to  bring  forward  some  specific  proposition  on  which 


xxxil  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

the  sense  of  Parliament  might  be  unequivocally  pronounced,  as  to 
the  efficiency  of  his  administration.  Open  conflict  they  declined, 
preferring  to  persevere  in  a  species  of  Guerilla  warfare — teazing 
attacks,  sudden  sallies,  and  quick  retreats. 

Little  of  interesting  information  can  be  communicated  with 
regard  to  the  last  moments  of  Mr.  Canning,  as  his  fatal  illness, 
from  its  very  commencement  almost,  was  so  acute  and  severe  as 
to  overpower  the  vigour  of  his  understanding. 

On  Wednesday,  the  11th  of  July,  Mr.  Canning  went  to  Wim- 
bleton  to  a  Cabinet  dinner,  at  the  Lord  Chancellor's,  where,  having 
made  himself  warm  with  exercise,  he  sat  some  time  under  a  tree 
in  the  open  air.  The  next  day  he  complained  of  a  slight  feeling 
of  rheumatism;  but  it  was  not  till  the  following  Saturday,  that  it 
became  so  serious  as  to  make  him  keep  his  bed.  He  was  confined 
there  for  nearly  a  week;  but  on  Friday,  the  20th,  was  sufficiently 
recovered  to  be  enabled  to  go  to  the  Duke  of  Devonshire's  villa  at 
Chiswick,  which  the  duke  had  lent  to  him  for  change  of  air.  From 
that  time  to  the  1st  of  August,  though  he  was  well  enough  to  come 
occasionally  to  his  residence  in  London,  and  to  ride  out,  yet  he 
made  little  progress  towards  recovery.  On  the  30th  of  July,  he 
paid  his  last  visit  to  His  Majesty,  and  on  the  31st,  he  came,  for  the 
last  time,  to  town,  and  transacted  business  for  a  few  hours  with 
several  official  gentlemen.  On  his  return  to  Chiswick  that  even- 
ing, he  dined  in  company  with  some  friends,  and  retired  early  to 
bed,  from  which  he  was  destined  never  again  to  rise.  On  the  2d 
and  3d  he  was  in  very  cheerful  spirits,  and  on  the  evening  of  the 
latter  day  he  transacted  business  with  Mr.  Herries  for  three  hours. 
It  was  about  two  hours  after  that  gentleman  had  left  him,  that  he 
was  seized  with  excruciating  pains  in  the  side,  which  gave  the 
first  striking  indications  to  those  around  him  of  his  alarming 
condition.  Two  hours  afterwards  the  medical  gentlemen  arrived, 
and  he  was  bled  largely.  From  that  time  till  his  death  his  suffer- 
ings were,  with  few  intermissions,  so  acute,  that  he  could  hardly 
be  said  to  be  in  the  full  possession  of  his  faculties.  He  was, 
however,  at  times,  tolerably,  if  not  entirely  collected;  and  at  those 
times,  as  well  as  in  his  wanderings,  he  expressed  concern  at  the 
inconvenience  his  illness  might  occasion  to  the  business  of  Gov- 
ernment, and  gave  frequent  indications  that  his  King  and  country 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  XXXIII 

anxiously  occupied  his  thoughts.  On  the  Sunday  before  his  death, 
he  remembered  the  day,  and  expressed  a  wish  that  his  daughter 
should  read  prayers  to  him — a  duty  which  he  himself,  in  his 
busiest  moments,  never  omitted  to  perform  to  his  whole  household, 
whenever  he  was  prevented  from  going  to  church:  but  a  few 
minutes  after  he  had  expressed  this  wish,  the  pain,  which  had  for 
a  time  subsided,  returned  with  great  violence,  and  with  it  return- 
ed likewise  the  wanderings  of  his  mind.  In  the  course  of  the 
evening  of  this  day,  on  some  religious  observation  being  made  by 
one  of  the  attendants,  he  declared  "  his  hope  of  salvation  through 
the  merits  of  his  Redeemer,  Jesus  Christ."  The  two  last  days,  his 
strength  and  his  pains  diminished  in  like  proportion,  and,  having 
been  senseless  for  some  hours,  he  breathed  his  last,  without  a 
groan,  a  little  before  four  o'clock,  on  the  morning  of  the  8th  of 
August. 

The  family  which  Mr.  Canning  left,  to  deplore  a  loss  in  which 
their  sorrows  shared  the  sympathy  of  the  nation,  consisted  of  his 
widow,*  to  whom  he  had  been  united  in  most  affectionate  en- 
dearment for  twenty-eight  years;  a  daughter,  married  to  the  Mar- 
quis of  Clanricarde  in  1825;  and  two  sons,  one  a  commander  in 
the  navy,  and  the  other  a  student  at  Eton. 

The  funeral  obsequies  of  Mr.  Canning,  which  took  place  on  the 
16th  of  August,  were  assimilated  to  those  of  a  private  gentleman. 
The  day  was  peculiarly  unfavourable,  yet  the  crowd  of  persons, 
anxious  to  demonstrate  their  respect  for  the  departed  Statesman, 
was  immense.  The  streets  leading  from  Downing  Street,  from 
the  late  residence  of  Mr.  Canning,  were  thronged  by  a  dense 
assemblage  of  persons,  habited  suitably  to  the  melancholy  occa- 
sion. At  one  o'clock,  the  funeral  procession  departed  from  Down- 
ing Street.  The  hearse,  drawn  by  six  horses,  and  preceded  by  a 
marshal,  mutes,  and  pursuivants,  were  followed  by  nine  mourning 
coaches,  each  drawn  by  four  horses;  the  private  carriages  of  the 
Cabinet  ministers,  and  the  friends  of  the  deceased  Premier,  closed 
the  cortege.  Mr.  Charles  Canning,  a  youth  of  fourteen  years  of 
age,  was  the  chief  mourner.  Their  Royal  Highnesses,  the  Dukes 
of  Clarence  and  Sussex,  attended  to  pay  their  last  mark  of  mourn- 

Mrs.  Canning  has  been  recently  raised  to  the  peerage,  by  the  title  c-t 
Viscountess  Canning. 


XXXIV  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH. 

ful  respect  to  the  minister.  The  Cabinet  ministers,  who  princi- 
pally occupied  the  mourning  coaches,  also  attended  as  mourners — 
with  the  exception  of  his  attached  friend,  Mr.  Huskisson,  who  was 
absent  at  the  time  in  a  distant  part  of  the  Continent,  and  Lord 
Harrowby,  who  was  in  Devonshire,  and  sent  an  apology  for  his 
absence.  The  other  mourners  were,  the  Marquis  of  Clarincarde, 
Captain  Hunn,  Mr.  Stapleton,  (Mr.  Canning's  Private  Secretary,) 
the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  the  Marquis  of  Conyngham,  Lord  Sea- 
ford,  Lord  Morley,  Lord  Howard  de  Walden,  Lord  George  Ben- 
tinck,  Mr.  Planta,  Mr.  Denison,  Mr.  Backhouse,  Sir  M.  Tierney, 
Dr.  Holland,  and  the  other  medical  attendants  of  Mr.  Canning. 
The  funeral  train  was  received  at  the  entrance  to  the  Abbey,  by 
Dr.  Ireland,  the  Dean  of  Westminster;  a  numerous  body  of  polit- 
ical and  private  friends,  who  were  provided  with  tickets,  formed 
into  two  lines  along  the  great  aisle,  through  which  the  procession 
passed  on  its  way  to  the  north  transept.  As  soon  as  the  proces- 
sion reached  the  place  of  sepulture,  the  Foreign  ambassadors,  the 
Cabinet  ministers,  and  other  mourners,  formed  a  circle  round  the 
coffin,  whilst  the  Reverend  Dean  of  Westminster  read  impressively 
the  burial  service. 

That  Mr.  Canning's  professions  of  devotedness  to  the  cause  of 
benevolence  were  perfectly  sincere,  his  whole  life  bore  ample 
testimony.  He  was  eminently  distinguished  by  the  charities  of 
human  nature,  and  was  perpetually  diffusing  happiness  around 
the  circle  in  which  he  moved.  No  man  could  be  more  alive  to 
appeals  made  to  his  compassion.  By  his  humane  interference,  he 
saved  the  life  of  one  of  the  Cato-Street  conspirators.  It  is  said 
that,  being  on  a  visit  at  his  friend's  house,  Mr.  Ellis,  now  Lord 
Seaford,  at  Seaford,  in  taking  one  of  his  early  morning  walks,  he 
was  caught  in  a  very  violent  squall,  when  he  was  invited  into  the 
signal-house  on  Beachy  Head,  occupied  by  a  lieutenant  in  the  navy, 
where  every  civility  was  paid  him  as  a  stranger,  then  wholly  un- 
known to  the  inmates.  Mr.  Canning,  while  taking  his  homely 
breakfast  under  this  hospitable  roof,  amused  himself  with  noticing 
the  younger  branches  of  the  family,  which  were  numerous.  Mr. 
Canning  said  to  the  veteran,  "  Why  do  you  not  send  the  boy  to 
sea?"  How  can  I  afford  that?"  replied  the  lieutenant;  "I  assure 
you,  Sir,  it  is  with  difficulty  I  find  the  means  of  filling  out  their 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  XXXV 

jackets;  would  to  God  I  could  get  him  to  sea!"  "And  then," 
said  Mr.  Canning,  "  of  what  profession  are  your  daughters,  how 
do  they  employ  themselves? — one,  I  see,  is  grown  up."  "  Why, 
Sir,  this  eldest  is  astonishingly  clever  at  her  needle,  and  I  should 
like  to  have  her  sent  to  some  dress-maker."  The  stranger  guest 
departed;  but  in  a  few  days  the  boy  was  sent  for,  fitted  out  as  a 
midshipman,  and  is  now  a  lieutenant.  The  girl  was  provided  with 
the  situation  suited  to  her  talents,  with  a  lady  in  Pall  Mall,  and  is 
since  respectably  married.  The  whole  expense  was  defrayed  by 
their  generous  morning  guest,  and  the  tears  of  this  veteran's  fam- 
ily followed  him  to  the  grave. 

Mr.  Canning  was  the  consummate  orator  of  his  country  and 
age.  He  had  cultivated  eloquence,  as  a  liberal  art,  with  the  zeal 
of  a  student,  and  became  one  of  its  classic  masters.  Some  may 
have  exceeded  him  in  particular  qualities  or  powers;  but  he  pos- 
sessed an  assemblage  of  endowments  and  acquirements  which  left 
all  rivalry  at  a  distance.  He  combined  the  free  movement,  spirit, 
and  reality  of  British  parliamentary  debate,  with  the  elaborate 
perfection  of  the  forum  and  the  agora — and  the  accessary  accom- 
plishments and  graces  of  ancient  and  modern  literature. 

He  had  studied,  with  a  quick  and  congenial  feeling,  those  severe 
and  eternal  models — the  remains  of  ancient  eloquence.  His  ele- 
gance of  expression  was  fastidious,  without  weakening  its  force — 
his  wit  was  not  so  elaborately,  concentratedly  brilliant,  as  Sheri- 
dan's— but  it  was  more  prompt,  redundant,  aud  disposable — and, 
if  it  may  be  so  said,  more  logical — whilst  his  ridicule,  inimitably 
poignant,  was  ever  governed  by  high  breeding  and  his  good  taste. 
Mr.  Canning's  reading  was  extensive  and  various,  and  his  fancy 
flitted  over  history,  fiction,  and  external  nature,  with  quickness 
and  felicity — for  illustration,  citation,  or  metaphor.  He  had  the 
tact  to  discern,  and  the  dexterity  to  expose,  what  was  weak  or 
ridiculous  on  the  adverse  side — the  art  to  push  an  opponent's 
simile,  or  analogy,  ad  absurdum — or  to  discover  grandeur  in  what 
was  meant  for  reproach  (as  in  his  retort  that  Porteus,  with  all  the 
versatility  of  his  shapes,  was  in  every  shape  the  god) — and,  in  fine, 
to  lay  bare,  by  rigorous  syllogism,  a  fallacy  in  the  envelope  of  a 
■sophism,  or  loose  phrase. — Who  has  ever  reached  him  in  those 


XXXVI  BIOGRAPHICAL    SKETCH. 

adroit  movements,  and  happy  inspirations,  which  stamp  the  talent 
of  debate  ? 

Mr.  Canning  not  only  meditated  his  speeches,  but  composed 
carefully  (whether  on  paper  or  in  his  memory  matters  not)  the 
passages  of  effect.  His  exquisite  sense  of  the  elegance  of  style — 
of  the  precise  value  of  words — and  of  oratorical  collation  and 
cadence — will  be  felt  and  admired  in  the  speeches  revised  by  him 
— and  discerned  in  those  that  remain  in  a  state  less  perfect.  His 
printed  speeches,  present  the  orator  with  more  interest  and  fidelity, 
than  any  other  published  speeches,  excepting  Burke's,  who  wrote 
his  for  the  press — fortunately  for  posterity  and  his  own  fame.  Mr. 
Canning,  however,  will  not  be  found  always  equal  to  himself;  but 
as  it  is  the  condition  of  mediocrity  not  to  exceed,  and  its  privi- 
lege not  to  descend  below  itself — so  inequality  is  the  attribute  of 
genius,  from  the  father  of  poetry  and  eloquence  down  to  this  day. 

Person  and  delivery  are  considerable  parts  of  the  orator.  Mr: 
Canning's  height  was  of  the  heroic  standard — his  form  united 
elegance  and  strength — his  dress  was  modern,  without  pomp  or 
foppery — his  motions  and  pace  firm  and  elastic — with  a  charac- 
teristic, individualising  disregard  of  all  studied  grace.  His  coun- 
tenance was  moulded  in  the  happiest  English  style — comely, 
elegant,  and  simple — the  profile  gracefully,  rather  than  strongly 
defined — the  face  expressive,  and  mantiing,  as  he  spoke,  with  the 
changes  of  sentiment  and  emotion — the  eye  large  and  full,  and  if 
not  charged  with  the  lightning's  flash,  yet  beaming  with  intelli- 
gence— the  voice  strong,  flexible,  and  slightly  muffled,  so  as  to 
impart  a  softer  melody,  without  affecting  its  clearness.  His  port, 
as  he  spoke,  was  sometimes  negligent — often  admirable — evincing 
a  proud  consciousness  of  the  superiority  of  his  cause,  or  the  power 
of  his  eloquence.  His  action,  in  one  respect  was  objectionable — 
he  wielded  his  arms  alternately  and  vehemently,  without  variety 
or  grace,  and  spoke  occasionally  with  his  arms  crossed.  The  first 
of  recent  portrait-painters*  has  represented  him  in  a  frock  coat, 
with  his  arms  crossed,  on  the  floor  of  Parliament.  But  though 
the  likeness  is  perfect,  the  portrait  wants  historic  attitude,  aspect, 
and  expression.  The  artist  took  the  orator  who  could  launch  an 
epigram  or  a  retort — when  he  might  have  gone  so  much  higher. 

*  Sir  Thomas  Lawrence. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH.  xxxvil 

Possibly,  this  negligent  action  of  Mr.  Canning  was  indulged  in 
to  avoid  the  theatricalism  of  manner  with  which  Lord  Chatham 
was  reproached — and  which  betrayed,  too  palpably,  art  and  pre- 
paration in  Sheridan.  It  had  the  effect,  too,  of  giving  an  air  of 
unpremeditated  inspiration  to  his  most  calculated  strokes,  and 
passages  of  most  elaborate  splendour.  But  his  delivery,  on  the 
whole,  was  at  all  times  effective,  and,  with  the  occasion,  impas- 
sioned and  electrical. 

With  the  sensibility  of  his  temperament,  and  his  order  of  mind, 
Mr.  Canning  must  have  possessed  pathetic  power.  But  the  exer- 
cise of  this  is  scarcely  within  the  range  of  the  eloquence  of  Par- 
liament. His  sensibility,  joined  with  his  delicate  sense  of  per- 
sonal honour,  rendered  him  impatient,  sometimes,  of  petty  out- 
rages in  debate — and  so  gross  in  their  injustice,  as  to  recoil  upon 
their  authors — but  let  them  be  forgotten. 

Had  Mr.  Canning  devoted  himself  to  literature,  that  of  his 
country  must  have  been  adorned  by  him.  In  prose,  his  early 
compositions,  and  some  unavowed  pieces  in  the  maturity  of  his 
talent,  are  worthy  of  his  fame;  his  state  papers  remain  models  in 
their  kind. — His  pieces  in  verse,  indicate  a  resemblance  to  the 
genius  of  Pope.  He  would  have  excelled,  like  that  illustrious 
poet,  in  polished  diction,  keen  satire,  and  strong  traits  of  ridicule 
and  character. 


SELECT  SPEECHES 


OF    THE 


RIGHT  HONOURABLE  GEORGE  CANNING 


SPEECHES, 


TREATY  WITH  THE  KING  OF  SAR- 
DINIA. 

JANUARY  31st,  1794. 

The  first,  or  (as  it  is  usually  termed)  the  maiden  speech  of  Mr.  Canning,  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  was  delivered  in  the  debate  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Pitt, 
"  that  the  copy  of  the  treaty  with  the  King  of  Sardinia,  be  referred  to  the 
committee  of  supply."  By  this  treaty,  the  King  of  Sardinia  engaged  to  keep 
on  foot,  during  the  whole  course  of  the  present  war  with  France,  an  army  of 
fifty  thousand  men,  to  be  employed  for  the  defence  of  his  dominions,  as  well 
as  to  act  against  the  common  enemy.  On  the  part  of  His  Britannic  Majesty, 
it  was  stipulated  that  he  should  furnish  to  the  King  of  Sardinia,  during  the 
whole  course  of  the  war,  a  subsidy  of  two  hundred  thousand  pounds  sterling 
per  annum.  The  treaty  further  bound  the  King  of  England,  not  to  conclude  a 
peace  with  the  common  enemy,  without  comprehending  in  it  the  entire  restitu- 
tion to  His  Sardinian  Majesty,  of  all  the  parts  of  his  dominions,  which  belonged 
to  him  at  the  commencement  of  the  war.  In  return,  the  King  of  Sardinia 
was  bound  to  continue  firmly  and  inseparably  attached  to  the  common  cause, 
and  to  the  interests  of  the  King  of  England  in  this  war,  until  the  conclusion  of 
peace  between  Great  Britain  and  France. 

Mr.  Fox  opposed  the  motion.  He  conceived  it  to  be  very  unwise  to  enter 
into  such  a  treaty,  by  which  we  were  to  receive  nothing,  and  give  every  thing. 
The  engagement  was  a  hazardous  one,  and  we  had  nothing  stipulated  in  our 
favour,  that  might  be  considered  as  an  equivalent.  By  this  treaty,  the  King 
of  Sardinia  was  only  bound  to  maintain  fifty  thousand  men,  for  the  defence  of 
his  own  territories.  That  the  King  of  Sardinia  should  keep  up  such  a  force, 
what  did  we  engage  to  perform  1  Not  only  to  pay  a  subsidy  of  two  hundred 
thousand  pounds  a  year,  in  aid  of  maintaining  this  force,  but  to  restore  to  him 
all  those  territories  which  the  French  had  wrested  from  him  whilst  we  were 
sitting  quietly  by,  boasting  of  our  neutrality.  This  engagement  might  reduce 
us  to  purchase  peace  at  great  sacrifices  on  our  part,  in  order  to  make  good  our 
engagements  witli  the  King  of  Sardinia,  or  to  subject  ourselves  to  the  reproach 
of  a  breach  of  faith,  by  making  peace  without  obtaining  the  restoration  of  his 
territories.  He  must  peremptorily  deny  the  doctrine,  that  the  treaty  being  con- 
cluded by  His  Majesty,  the  proper  representative  of  the  country,  in  all  trans- 
actions with  foreign  powers,  the  House  could  not  refuse  to  ratify  it,  without 
subjecting  themselves  to  the  imputation  of  a  breach  of  faith.  If  the  House 
was  considered  as  bound  to  make  good  every  treaty,  which  by  the  advice  of  his 
ministers  he  might  think  proper  to  conclude,  there  was  a  complete  surrender 
of  the  public  purse  to  the  executive  power. 
1  B 


2  SARDINIAN   TREATY. 

Mr.  Powys  replied  to  Mr.  Fox.  He  said  it  was  natural  for  the  right  ho- 
nourable gentleman,  and  those  who,  like  him,  opposed  the  principle  of  the  war, 
to  oppose  every  measure  that  could  contribute  to  its  success. 

Mr.  Ryder  supported  the  motion. 

Mr.  Grey  did  not  consider  the  treaty,  as  one  calculated  to  give  energy  to 
the  war.  No  former  treaty  had  been  entered  into,  under  circumstances  nearly 
similar ;  and,  in  his  opinion,  the  epithet  "  unprecedented"  as  well  as  the  epi- 
thets, "absurd  and  iniquitous,"  might  be  justly  applied  to  it.  At  least,  he  must 
hear  many  more  circumstances  than  had  as  yet  been  stated,  before  he  could 
think  that  they  might  not. 


Mr.  Canning  rose,  and  spoke  to  the  following  effect: 
Sir, 

If  I  could  agree  with  the  honourable  gentleman  who  has  just  sat 
down,  in  considering  the  question  before  the  House  as  an  insu- 
lated and  independent  question,  standing  on  its  own  grounds,  and 
to  be  argued  solely  on  its  own  principles,  I  should  have  sat  by- 
contented,  wh^e  gentlemen,  more  qualified  for  such  a  task,  by 
their  opportunities  of  official  information,  and  by  their  ability 
every  way  greater  than  mine,  had  given  their  answer  to  the  ob- 
jections urged  against  the  treaty. 

I  should  have  sat  by,  contented  with  what  has  already  been 
said  by  a  right  honourable  gentleman  below  me,  (Mr.  Ryder,)  who 
has  given  to  all  the  objections  which  have  yet  been  urged,  an  am- 
ple, an  able,  and,  to  my  mind,  satisfactory  answer. 

But  I  do  much  rather  agree  with  the  honourable  gentleman  who 
has  spoken  second  in  the  debate,  that  the  question  now  agitating, 
is  not  to  be  argued  on  the  narrow  principle  of  mercantile  precision: 
that  it  is  not  simply  an  accurate  tradesman-like  inquiry  into  the 
goodness  or  badness  of  the  bargain  which  we  have  made;  an  inquiry 
Avhether  we  have  actually  received  a  fair  quid  pro  quo;  whether 
or  not  we  have  not  been  somewhat  extravagant  in  our  payment,  and 
suffered  ourselves  to  be  over-reached  in  the  transaction ;  but  that  it 
is  a  great  and  important  question,  growing  out  of,  and  inseparable 
from,  a  great  connected,  and  comprehensive  system — the  system 
of  general  union  among  the  powers  of  Europe,  which  has  for  its 
ultimate  object  to  prevent  the  aggrandizement  of  the  French  Re- 
public, and  to  check  the  principles  by  which  that  aggrandizement 
is  sought  to  be  effectuated:  and  as  upon  the  whole  of  that  system, 
and  upon  the  treaty  before  the  House,  as  part  of  that  system,  I 
cannot  conceive  how  any  gentleman  should  have  found  much  diffi- 
culty in  forming  his  opinion;  so,  I  trust,  that  if  I  attempt  to  deliver 
that  which  I  have  formed,  I  shall  stand  excused  from  the  charge 
of  presumption. 

I  know  but  two  points,  in  which  the  propriety  of  this,  or  in- 
deed of  any  other  treaty,  can  be  attacked  or  need  to  be  defended. 
1st,  It  might  be  argued,  that  no  such  treaty  ought  to  have  been 


SARDINIAN   TREATY.  3 

made  at  all.  2ndly,  Being  acknowledged  to  have  been  proper  to 
be.  made,  it  may  be  contended  to  be  more  disadvantageous  than 
any  other  treaty  that  had  ever  been  made  between  the  same  par- 
ties; and  that  in  one  of  two  ways, — either  by  showing  that  we 
had  paid  a  greater  price  for  the  alliance,  having  only  an  equal 
necessity  for  it;  or  by  showing  that  we  paid  an  equal  price  for  it, 
having  a  less  necessity.  The  question  is  thus  to  be  argued  in  two 
different  points  in  view.  It  is  to  be  first  shown  that  some  treaty 
with  the  King  of  Sardinia  was  proper;  and  if  that  inquiry  should 
terminate  in  the  affirmative,  it  will  then  be  my  business  to  con- 
tend, in  the  second  place,  that  this  treaty  is  equally  advantageous, 
as  well  as  beyond  comparison  more  necessary,  than  any  that  has 
been  heretofore  concluded  between  the  two  states.  The  discus- 
sion of  the  first  general  question  is  easy,  as  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  propriety  of  an  alliance  between  two  powers  en- 
gaged in  the  same  interest,  provoked  by  the  same  enormities,  and 
contending  with  the  same  enemy.  Without  longer  dwelling  upon 
this  branch  of  the  subject,  I  shall  therefore  proceed  to  the  next 
topic  of  investigation. 

The  honourable  gentlemen  who  has  preceded  me,  has  endea- 
voured to  show,  that  the  precedents  cited  by  the  gentlemen  on  this 
side  of  the  House,  differed  both  in  their  nature  and  circumstances 
from  the  present  treaty.  This  part  of  the  subject  has  been  al- 
ready so  amply  discussed,  that  I  will  add  nothing  to  it;  and, 
therefore,  without  staying  to  examine  the  validity  of  his  remarks, 
I  will  produce  an  instance  of  an  alliance  with  another  continental 
power,  which  will  be  found  to  tally  in  almost  every  particular.  I 
mean  the  subsidy-treaty  with  the  late  King  of  Prussia  in  1 759.  The 
objections  brought  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Fox) 
against  the  present  treaty;  the  points  wherein  he  states  it  to  differ 
for  the  worse,  from  every  other  treaty,  which  we  have  ever  form- 
ed with  the  same,  or  any  other  power,  are  these: — that  the  King 
of  Sardinia,  at  the  time  of  our  giving  him  the  subsidy,  was  ac- 
tually engaged  in  a  war  with  France;  and  that  there  was  no  ne- 
cessity, therefore,  for  us  to  have  subsidized  him,  to  make  him  go 
to  war;  that  the  only  condition  that  we  expected  from  him  in  re- 
turn for  Our  subsidy  was,  the  defence  of  his  own  dominions;  and 
that  for  this,  in  addition  to  the  subsidy,  we  guaranteed  to  him,  not 
the  possession  only  of  that  part  of  his  dominions  of  which  he 
was  still  possessed,  but  the  restitution  of  Savoy,  the  possession  of 
which  had  actually  been  taken  from  him.  With  every  one  of 
these  circumstances,  do  the  circumstances  of  the  subsidy-treaty 
with  the  King  of  Prussia,  in  1758,  exactly  tally.  The  King  of 
Prussia  was  tben  in  a  state  of  actual  war  with  all  the  great  conti- 
nental powers:  he  was  actually  out  of  possession  of  considerable 
part  of  his  dominions,  and  nearly  overwhelmed  by  the  immense 


4  SARDINIAN   TREATY. 

force  employed  against  him.  And  did  this  country  treat  him  as 
1  he  right  honourable  gentleman  would  now  wish  us  to  treat  the 
King  of  Sardinia?  No!  it  was  precisely  on  these  principles,  stated 
clearly  and  at  large  in  the  preamble  of  that  treaty,  because  he  was 
oppressed  by  powerful  enemies,  because  he  was  out  of  possession 
of  part  of  his  dominions,  and  because  he  was  so  exhausted  as  to 
be  incapable,  by  himself,  of  defending  the  remainder,  that  we 
were  induced  to  aid  him;  an  annual  subsidy  of  £670,000  was 
cheerfully  and  unanimously  voted  him;  was  carried  triumphantly 
through  this  House,  with  the  loudest  approbation  of  the  country. 

And  to  him,  too,  as  now  to  the  King  of  Sardinia,  we  guaran- 
teed the  restitution  of  those  dominions,  of  which  he  had  been  de- 
prived. The  difference,  therefore,  between  these  two  cases,  lay 
only  in  this:  that,  the  subsidy  granted  to  the  King  of  Prussia  was 
£400,000  larger  than  that  now  granted  to  the  King  of  Sardinia;  and 
that  the  necessity  for  subsidizing  the  King  of  Sardinia  now,  is  (in 
my  mind,  at  least,)  ten  thousand  times  more  urgent  than  that  for 
granting  the  subsidy  to  the  King  of  Prussia.  For,  on  what  prin- 
ciple could  that  vote  be  justified  to  the  people,  who  were  to  pay 
it?  On  the  wish  which  the  then  servants  of  the  crown  entertained 
to  preserve  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe.  But  how  much 
stronger  are  the  reasons  which  the  ministry  of  this  clay  might 
urge  in  defence  of  the  present  measure!  They  might  with  confi- 
dence tell  the  nation,  "  We  require  this  money,  not  to  support  a 
precarious  or  ideal  balance  of  power,  but  to  enable  us  to  defend 
your  government,  your  property,  and  your  lives,  against  an  ene- 
my who  is  waging  a  war  for  your  utter  extermination!  A  nation 
already  too  powerful,  has,  by  what  some  are  pleased  to  call  a  po- 
litical regeneration,  attained  to  a  degree  of  strength  which  threat- 
ens the  subversion  of  all  the  existing  forms  of  social  union.  To 
avert  this  catastrophe,  the  accession  of  Sardinia  is  requisite;  and 
she  can  give  effectual  aid  in  so  doing." 

A  noble  lord  (Wycomb),  on  the  first  night  of  the  session, 
avowed,  that  he  conceived  the  opinions  and  practices  now  preva- 
lent in  France  to  be  the  beginning  of  a  new  system  of' political 
principles  and  conduct  throughout  Europe.  If  it  be  true,  indeed, 
that  old  principles  are  giving  way  so  fast,  I  confess  that  the  notion 
of  the  balance  of  power,  does  not  appear  to  me  to  have  been  so 
very  clearly  explained,  or  so  generally  understood,  as  that  the 
people  of  England  would  cling  by  it  after  abandoning  all  their 
other  prejudices  and  prepossessions;  or  that  the  poor  peasantry, 
who  have  been  represented  this  night  as  having  their  hard-earned 
pittance  cruelly  wrung  from  them,  to  furnish  the  subsidy  for  the 
King  of  Sardinia,  would  be  better  pleased  to  part  with  it  for  the 
support  of  the  balance  of  power,  than  in  aid  of  an  ally,  engaged 
in  common  with  themselves  for  the  safety,  the  laws,  the  religion, 


SARDINIAN    TREATY.  5 

and  the  liberty  of  mankind.  I  cannot,  therefore,  conceive  on 
what  principle  any  gentleman  can  argue  the  present  treaty  to  be 
disadvantageous,  in  comparison  with  that  of  175S-9,  unless,  in- 
deed, it  be,  that,  as  it  seems  to  be,  the  opinion  of  gentlemen 
opposite,  that  the  Earl  of  Yarmouth  discharged  his  embassy  to 
the  court  of  Prussia,  so  much  better  for  being  unpaid,  so  they 
might  possibly  think  that  the  King  of  Sardinia  would  fight  better 
if  we  refused  to  pay  him. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite,*  (and  here  I  beg  to 
be  understood,  that  when  I  presume  to  notice  such  arguments  as 
I  think  exceptionable,  when  they  come  even  from  such  authority, 
I  do  not  do  so  with  any  intention  of  behaving  to  that  right  honour- 
able gentleman  in  any  other  manner  than  such  as  might  evince 
what  I  really  feel,  the  sincerest  admiration  for  his  talents,  and 
respect  and  esteem  for  his  person) — that  right  honourable  gentle- 
man does  indeed  seem  to  entertain  some  such  opinion;  for  he  has 
argued  almost  as  if  he  thought  that  the  subsidy  was  a  drawback 
upon  the  exertions  of  the  King  of  Sardinia;  that  he  had  been  well 
enough  disposed  at  first,  both  by  interest  and  inclination,  to  carry 
on  the  war  with  vigour;  but  that,  impose  upon  him  a  subsidy,  and 
all  his  vigour  was  instantly  overwhelmed  and  extinguished.  Nay, 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  went  still  farther,  and  proposed 
that  the  King  of  Sardinia,  not  only  should  have  received  nothing 
at  our  hands,  but  that  because  he  happens  to  be  the  sovereign  of 
a  territory,  whose  revenues  are  insufficient  to  support  an  adequate 
military  force,  we  who  are  wealthy  ought  to  insist  upon  his  sub- 
sidizing us;  that  he  should  not  only  fight  on  by  himself,  but  pay 
us  for  looking  at  him.  Till  I  can  subscribe  to  this  doctrine,  I 
shall  continue  to  think  that,  under  the  circumstances  in  which 
the  King  of  Sardinia  stands,  it  is  essentially  necessary  that  we 
should  assist  him;  and  that  it  is  not  proposed  that  our  assistance 
should  be  afforded  to  him  in  a  more  ample  manner  than  the 
necessity  requires. 

With  regard  1o  the  question  which  I  have  at  first  passed  over, 
the  objections  to  the  treaty  in  tolo,  as  if  it  ought  never  to  have 
been  made,  all  these  objections  would  nil imately  resolve  them- 
selves into  such  as  have  been  urged  against  the  war  in  general. 
As  I  have  not  yet  enjoyed  any  opportunity  of  declaring  my  sen- 
timents upon  this  subject,  I  will,  if  consistent  with  the  rules  of 
the  House,  offer  a  few  remarks  upon  it  before  I  sit  down,  con- 
ceiving it  to  be  natural  and  necessary  that  I  should  declare  my 
reasons  fur  approving  the  commencement  of  a  war  which  I  am 
supporting  in  detail,  and  of  which  I  applaud  the  continuance  and 
vigorous  prosecution. 

The  war,  then,  Sir,  I  cannot,  consider  in  any  other  light,  than 

*  Mr.  Fox. 


6  SARDINIAN  TREATY. 

as  a  war  into  which  we  have  been  forced  by  unprovoked  aggres- 
sions on  the  part  of  France;  nor  can  I  see,  as  some  gentlemen  are 
disposed  to  do,  that  these  aggressions  are  the  less  to  be  resisted 
and  repelled,  on  account  of  the  principles  by  which  they  are 
.sought  to  be  justified.  Distinctions,  indeed,  have  been  taken  by 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  between  the  progress 
of  the  arms  of  France  and  the  progress  of  her  principles.  The 
progress  of  her  arms,  it  is  admitted,  it  has  been,  and  will  always 
be,  our  right  and  our  policy  to  oppose;  but  we  need  not,  and  we 
ought  not,  it  seems,  to  go  to  war  against  her  principles.  I,  for  my 
part,  cannot  see  such  nice  distinctions.  Admitting  that  the  ag- 
grandizement and  aggression  of  France,  must  naturally  be  the 
objects  of  our  jealousy  and  resistance,  I  cannot  understand  that 
they  become  less  so,  in  proportion  as  they  are  accompanied  and 
promoted  by  principles  destructive  of  civil  society.  I  can  con- 
ceive no  reason  why  the  sword,  which,  if  it  had  been  attempted 
to  be  drawn  by  the  ancient  monarchy  of  France  would  have  been 
represented  as  threatening  our  prosperity,  our  rights,  our  very  ex- 
istence, may  be  wielded  with  tenfold  force  by  the  arm  of  republi- 
canism; may  be  pointed  even  at  our  breasts,  without  endangering 
our  safety  or  our  honour. 

But  not  only  is  this  a  war  against  principles,  but  against  the 
very  best  of  principles,  a  war  against  freedom.  This  is  loudly 
and  confidently  asserted,  and  is  to  be  proved,  we  are  told,  from 
the  circumstance  of  ministers  having  neglected  to  interfere  con- 
cerning the  partition  of  Poland.  Had  not  ministers  been  actu- 
ated by  a  hatred  of  liberty  on  the  one  hand,  and  restrained  by  a 
love  of  despotism  on  the  other,  they  could  never  have  chosen  to 
make  war  against  France,  rather  than  against  the  powers  who  had 
partitioned  Poland.  The  authors  of  this  assertion  affect  to  disre- 
gard, or  disdain  to  consider,  the  comparative  distance  of  France 
or  Poland,  the  relative  importance  of  the  two  countries  to  us,  the 
strength  of  the  confederacy  by  which  the  latter  was  oppressed, 
and  every  other  circumstance  which  should  guide  the  discretion 
or  regulate  the  conduct  of  every  sober  politician. 

Well,  I  will  put  all  these  considerations  out  of  the  question:  I 
will  not  urge  the  obvious  absurdity  of  going  in  search  of  distant 
dangers,  and  overlooking  that  which  knocked  at  our  door;  I  will 
say  nothing  of  the  comparative  disadvantages  of  going  to  war 
with  Austria,  Prussia,  and  Russia,  without  an  ally,  and  going  to 
war  against  France,  with  all  those  mighty  powers  to  aid  us;  I 
will  even  forego  the  use  of  the  argument  to  which  I  have  before 
adverted,  the  different  degrees  of  urgency  and  of  popularity  which 
there  must  always  be  between  a  war,  such  as  that  for  Poland 
would  have  been,  for  the  sake  of  the  balance  of  power,  and  one 
like  that  in  which  we  are  engaged  with  France,  for  our  own  de- 


SARDINIAN   TREATY.  7 

fence  and  preservation.  I  shall  pass  over  all  this;  I  will  admit, 
for  a  moment,  that  there  was  equal  necessity,  equal  call,  for  our 
exertions  in  both  cases;  and  then  I  will  put  the  argument  simply 
and  solely  on  this  ground:  if  there  be  two  powers,  who  have 
equally  offended  you,  and  from  whom,  by  war  or  by  negotiation, 
you  must  seek  redress;  if  one  of  those  powers,  however  in  other 
respects  odious  and  wicked  in  your  eyes,  cannot,  however,  be 
denied  to  have  a  settled,  a  responsible  government,  with  which  a 
negociation  may  be  easily  and  prudently  carried  on — while,  in 
the  other,  however  otherwise  amiable  and  admirable,  it  must  be 
admitted,  that  there  is  no  such  thing,  no  safe  or  tangible  means 
of  negotiation — does  it  not  seem  a  most  unaccountable  perverse- 
ness  of  judgment,  which  shall  say,  "  Negotiate  with  that  party 
with  which  negotiation  is  impracticable;  go  to  war  with  that 
where  negotiation  would  equally  avail;  negotiate  with  France; 
go  to  war  with  Austria,  Russia,  Prussia;  take  the  bond  of  the 
beggar,  and  throw  the  solvent  debtor  into  jail!" 

We  have  been  told  that  this  is  a  war,  into  which  we  have  been 
hurried  by  clamour  and  prejudice;  in  short,  that  it  is  a  war  of  pas- 
sion. If,  by  a  war  of  passion,  gentlemen  mean,  that  it  is  one  con- 
trary to  humanity,  justice,  and  sound  policy, — that  it  is  a  war 
which  owes  its  origin  and  support  to  the  indulgence  of  some 
blameable  propensity  in  our  nature,  gentlemen,  in  establishing  this, 
have  undertaken  a  harder  task  than  they  seem  to  be  aware  of.  They 
must  arraign  nature,  and  confute  instinct;  for  they  must  prove  that 
self-preservation  is  a  passion,  which  it  is  criminal  to  indulge.  But 
if,  by  a  war  of  passion,  gentlemen  understand  no  more,  than  that 
in  addition  to  all  the  legitimate  and  cogent  causes  of  war;  in  ad- 
dition to  the  necessity  of  repelling  unprovoked  aggression,  of  suc- 
couring our  distressed  allies,  of  saving  Europe,  of  preserving  our- 
selves; that,  in  addition  to  all  this,  there  are  circumstances  in  this 
war,  which  engage  and  interest  the  best  feelings  and  sensibilities 
of  our  nature:  in  this  sense  we  might  be  proud  to  own,  that  it  is 
fairly  to  be  called  a  war  of  passion;  and  if  from  that  dignified  char- 
acter it  were  to  be  degraded  into  a  war  of  ambition  and  interest, 
it  would  cease  to  have  in  me  a  warm  and  zealous  defender. 

An  appeal  is  made  to  our  prudence;  and  we  are  asked,  with  an 
air  of  triumph,  what  are  we  to  get  by  this  war  ?  Before  I  attempt 
to  answer  that  question,  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  ask,  whether  or 
not  that  question  properly  and  particularly  applies  to  a  war,  such 
as  we  contend  this  to  be,  a  war  of  aggrandizement  and  specu- 
lation ?  If,  indeed,  ministers  had  come  down  to  this  House,  and 
said,  "  We  have  an  opportunity  of  procuring  great  and  advanta- 
geous acquisitions  for  the  country;  we  may  wrest  from  France 
some  fertile  province,  or  extort  from  her  some  valuable  branch  of 
her  commerce,  if  you  will  but  support  us  in  a  war;" — and  if,  upon 


S  SARDINIAN   TREATY. 

these  grounds,  the  House  had  consented  to  support  them;  then  I 
grant  the  whole  matter  at  issue  between  the  House  and  ministers, 
— the  question  which  might  be  most  fairly  put,  as  conclusive  upon 
the  merits  of  the  war,  would  be, — Well,  what  after  all,  are  we 
likely  to  get  by  this  war?  But,  in  the  present  case,  it  was  widely 
different.  We  might  be  proud  to  say,  that  in  this  war,  that  is  not 
the  first  question  that  we  asked.  I,  for  one,  should  be  ashamed 
to  defend  a  war,  in  which  it  was  the  only  question  that  could  be 
satisfactorily  answered.  Yet,  Sir,  let  not  gentlemen  run  away 
with  the  idea  that  we  have  gained  nothing.  Sir,  that  we  have 
still  a  government;  that  the  functions  of  this  House  have  not  been 
usurped  by  a  corresponding  society,  or  a  Scotch  Convention;  that 
instead  of  sitting  in  debate  here,  whether  or  not  we  shall  subsi- 
dize the  King  of  Sardinia,  we  are  not  rather  employed  in  devising 
how  to  raise  a  forced  loan  for  some  proconsular  deputy,  whom 
the  banditti  of  Paris  might  have  sent  to  receive  our  contributions; 
Sir,  that  we  sit  here  at  all — These  are  the  fruits  of  the  war. 

But  when  neither  our  reason  nor  our  prudence  can  be  set 
against  the  war,  an  attempt  is  made  to  alarm  our  apprehensions. 
The  French  are  stated  to  be  an  invincible  people:  inflamed  to  a 
degree  of  madness  with  the  holy  enthusiasm  of  freedom,  there  is 
nothing  that  they  will  not  undertake,  there  is  nothing  that  they 
cannot  accomplish.  I  am  as  ready  as  any  man  to  allow,  that  the 
French  are  enthusiastically  animated,  be  it  how  it  may,  to  a  state 
of  absolute  insanity.  I  desire  no  better  proof  of  their  being  mad, 
than  to  see  them  hugging  themselves  in  a  system  of  slavery  so 
gross  and  grinding  as  their  present,  and  calling  at  the  same  time 
aloud  upon  all  Europe  to  admire  and  envy  their  freedom.  But 
before  their  plea  of  madness  can  be  admitted  as  conclusive  against 
our  right  to  be  at  war  with  them,  gentlemen  would  do  well  to  re- 
collect that  of  madness  there  are  several  kinds.  If  theirs  had 
been  a  harmless  idiot  lunacy,  which  had  contented  itself  with 
playing  its  tricks,  and  practising  its  fooleries  at  home;  with  dress- 
ing up  strumpets  in  oak  leaves,  and  inventing  nick  names  for  the 
calendar,  I  should  have  been  far  from  desiring  to  interrupt  their 
innocent  amusements;  we  might  have  looked  on  with  hearty  con- 
tempt, indeed,  but  with  a  contempt  not  wholly  unmixed  with 
commisseration. 

But  if  theirs  be  a  madness  of  a  different  kind,  a  moody,  mis- 
chievous insanity, — if,  not  contented  with  tearing  and  wounding 
themselves,  they  proceed  to  exert  their  unnatural  strength  for  the 
annoyance  of  their  neighbours, — if,  not  satisfied  with  weaving 
straws,  and  wearing  fetters  at  home,  they  attempt  to  carry  their 
systems  and  their  slavery  abroad,  and  to  impose  them  on  the  na- 
tions of  Europe;  it  becomes  necessary  then,  that  those  nations 
should  be  roused  to  resistance.     Such  a  disposition  must,  for  the 


SARDINIAN  TREATY.  9 

safety  and  peace  of  the  world,  be  repelled,  and,  if  possible,  era- 
dicated. 

When  it  is  found  that  we  are  not  to  be  daunted  by  the  effects 
of  their  madness,  we  are  called  upon  to  compassionate  its  cause. 
It  has  arisen,  as  we  are  told,  partly  from  the  oppression  of  their  an- 
cient government,  and  partly  from  their  being  inflamed  and  exas- 
perated by  the  present  powerful  confederacy  formed  against  them. 
What,  if  I  were  to  be  attacked  by  an  individual  madman — is  it 
my  business  to  proceed  to  an  investigation  of  the  origin  of  his 
disease,  before  I  guard  against  its  consequences?  And  if  I  find, 
upon  examination,  that  there  was  reasonable  and  just  cause  for  his 
running  mad,  if  a  stander-by  shall  say  to  me,  "  that  poor  man  lost 
his  wits  from  love,  or  was  driven  out  of  them  by  the  cruelty  of 
relations — if  you  were  to  know  by  what  a  melancholy  train  of 
accidents  that  unhappy  maniac  was  reduced  to  his  present  despe- 
rate condition,  you  would  be  above  resisting  him!" — Is  this  sort 
of  reasoning  to  operate  with  me  against  the  adoption  of  any  meas- 
ures of  self-defence  ?  I  can  hardly  think  so — nor  can  I  agree  that, 
with  regard  to  the  French  nation,  it  would  merit  much  more  at- 
tention— no  matter  how  they  came  to  be  what  they  are;  if  wild 
beasts  I  find  them,  as  against  wild  beasts,  I  must  defend  myself. 

I  do  not  envy  gentlemen  the  task  which  they  have  imposed  on 
themselves  of  poisoning  the  fair  hopes  of  the  country,  and  re- 
ducing the  minds  of  the  people,  otherwise  not  inclined  to  a  want 
of  confidence  in  the  successes  of  the  war,  to  a  state  of  depression 
and  despair.  I  do  not  much- envy  their  industry;  neither,  I  con- 
fess, do  I  much  fear  their  success.  But  when  gentlemen  have 
once  undertaken  that  ungrateful  task  (for  unpleasing  I  am  sure  it 
must  be,  and  nothing  but  a  strong  and  imperious  sense  of  their 
duty  could  induce  them  to  undertake  it  at  all) — when  they  have 
once  done  so,  I  think  they  are  bound  to  go  through  with  it.  And 
then,  if  all  that  they  have  said  be  true;  if  our  situation  be  indeed 
as  deplorable  as  they  represent  it — if  we  have  failed  in  all  our 
plans — and  been  baffled  in  every  exertion — if  such  have  been  the 
nature  and  extent  of  our  misfortunes,  that  we  have  neither  satis- 
faction in  what  is  past,  nor  resources  for  the  present,  nor  hopes 
for  the  future — and  if  for  all  these  reasons,  it  is  become  necessary, 
as  they  state,  to  sue  for  peace — let  not  gentlemen  stop  here — let 
them  finish  the  picture — let  them  show  us  the  extent  of  our 
calamities — and  describe  all  the  horrors  of  our  situation.  If  for 
these  reasons,  peace  must  be  asked,  let  them  tell  us,  for  these 
same  reasons,  what  sort  of  a  peace  we  are  likely  to  obtain.  It 
would  not  be  a  common  peace,  to  be  obtained  by  common  con- 
cessions, or  preserved  with  common  security.  On  our  part,  as- 
suredly, we  must  insist  on  the  disbanding  of  the  great  standing 
army,  which  is  the  instrument  of  the  revolutionary  government 


10  SARDINIAN   TREATY. 

of  our  enemy;  and  can  it  be  thought  that  the  potent  Republic, 
which  has,  according  to  some  gentlemen,  baffled  all  our  schemes, 
and  withstood  all  our  efforts,  would  submit  to  so  degrading  and 
humiliating  a  concession?  Our  only  reliance  then  must  be  on  the 
public  faith  and  responsibility  of  the  present  rulers  of  France — 
men,  whose  characters  are  so  familiar  to  this  House,  that  I  shall 
not  think  it  worth  while  to  delineate  them — but  will  ask  gentle- 
men, whether  or  not  they  recollect  an  argument,  which  some  of 
them  brought  forward  on  a  former  night — that  it  was  by  the  dis- 
traction of  that  unhappy  country  within,  and  the  pressure  of  hos- 
tile force  from  without,  that  these  monsters  had  been  raised  to 
power?  If  they  avow  that  argument,  I  would  farther  ask,  whether 
they  must  not  acknowledge,  that  the  power  of  these  men  would 
cease  with  the  cessation  of  the  cause  that  produced  it — that  those 
causes  would  cease  with  the  war — and  that  the  very  act  of  making 
peace,  therefore,  on  the  responsibility  of  the  present  rulers  of 
France,  would,  by  destroying  their  power,  destroy  the  only  se- 
curity of  its  continuance? 

So  much  for  our  security,  and  on  the  other  hand — what  terms 
could  we  offer?  In  vain  might  we  propose  all  the  usual  securities 
of  pacification  on  our  part — the  recalling  our  troops — the  dis- 
mantling our  navy — the  cession  of  the  islands  and  provinces 
which  we  have  taken — the  abandonment  of  our  allies,  and  the  relin- 
quishment of  this  same  Savoy,  of  which  so  much  had  been  said: 
the  answer  of  France  would  be,  "  No — that  is  not  enough  from 
you — it  is  idle  mockery  to  talk  of  those  things  as  pledges  for 
your  peaceable  disposition  towards  us.  It  is  not  enough,  that  you 
relinquish  all  that  you  have  gained,  or  indemnify  us  for  all  we 
have  expended,  that  you  expose  your  commerce  to  our  rapine, 
and  your  coasts  to  our  invasion.  You  have  among  you  what  must 
keep  alive  an  internal  disposition  to  enmity  against  us,  and  a 
power  that  will  give  effect  to  that  disposition;  you  have  your 
Constitution,  surrender  us  that.  It  is  against  that,  that  we  origi- 
nally declared  war; — by  the  submission  of  that  alone  can  the  war 
be  determined.  We  ask  no  more  of  you,  our  enemies,  as  a  pledge 
of  peace,  than  we  have  before  demanded  of  our  friends,  the  Bel- 
gians, as  a  memorial  of  amity.  But,  while  your  Constitution  re- 
mains, whatever  other  show  of  friendship  you  may  hold  out  to 
us,  never  can  true  reconcilement  grow  between  sentiments  and 
systems  so  opposite — while  that  continues  to  give  vigour  to  your 
government,  and  generosity  to  your  people,  never  can  you  sit 
tamely  by,  spectators  of  the  fantastic  pranks  which  we  mean  to 
play  throughout  Europe." 

But  neither  does  it  appear  to  me,  that  the  call  for  peace  is  so 
pressing  and  immediate.  I  have  heard  it  asserted,  indeed,  that 
the  people  were  awakening  from  what  was  called  their  delusion, 


SARDINIAN   TREATY.  J1 

and  were  oecome  clamorous  for  the  speedy  conclusion  of  the  war. 
I  heard  it  asserted  on  a  former  night,  that  even  among  those  gen- 
tlemen who  support  ministers  in  this  House,  there  was  not  one 
who  would  stand  up  to  say,  that  in  his  heart  he  was  satisfied  with 
the  prosecution  of  the  war.  I,  for  my  part,  cannot  boast  of  such 
various  and  extensive  communications  out  of  doors,  as  many  gen- 
tlemen might  have — nor  have  I  long  enough  had  the  honour  of  a 
seat  in  this  House,  to  be  able  to  judge  by  any  other  criterion  than 
its  votes,  of  the  touch  and  temper  of  its  inclinations.  But  so 
far  as  my  own  limited  communication  and  short  experience  ena- 
bles me  to  speak  to  this  point,  I  can  fairly  say — I  come  from 
among  the  people,  whom  I  have  left,  not  disheartened  and  des- 
ponding, anxious,  indeed,  (as  which  of  us  is  not?)  for  the  happy 
and  honourable  termination  of  the  war — but  resolved  to  persevere 
with  vigour,  till  a  termination,  such  as  they  approve,  not  disgrace- 
ful, nor  calamitous,  shall  be  obtained.  I  come  among  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  whom  I  find  as  they  ought  to  be,  in 
unison  with  the  sentiments  of  their  constituents,  to  continue  to 
prosecute  with  firmness  a  war  begun  through  necessity; — sup- 
porting it  with  unremitted  ardour,  and  sanctioning  it  with  unex- 
ampled majorities. 

For  all  these  reasons,  because  I  conceive  the  war,  of  which  this 
treaty  is  a  natural  and  necessary  part,  to  have  begun  in  necessity, 
and  to  be  continued  in  justice;  because  I  cannot  think  that  in  its 
progress  it  has  been  so  deplorably  and  disgracefully  unsuccessful 
as  some  gentlemen  are  willing  to  represent  it;  because  I  do  not 
see  how  our  acquisitions  in  the  West  Indies  can  fairly  be  stated 
as  a  loss;  because  I  do  not  see,  how  our  conquests  in  the  East  can 
properly  be  characterized  as  disgraces  and  defeats;  because  I  do 
not  see,  how  the  destruction  of  the  maritime  force  of  our  only 
maritime  rival,  can  reasonably  be  calculated  as  a  fatal  blow  to  our 
commercial  and  naval  superiority; — but,  because  I  do  in  my 
heart  believe,  the  very  reverse  of  all  these  propositions  to  be 
true:  because,  to  conduct  the  war  to  a  successful  and  glorious 
termination,  I  conceive  that  the  system  of  alliances,  which  we 
have  formed,  should  be  scrupulously  maintained; — that  they 
should  be  maintained,  not  only  with  those  powers,  which  were 
of  themselves  strong  enough  to  perform  a  part  adequate  to  the 
assistance  which  they  might  receive  from  us,  but,  if  there  should 
appear  in  any  of  the  allied  powers,  a  want  of  ability  to  perform 
such  a  part, — if  there  should  appear  to  be  weakness  in  their  coun- 
cils, or  slackness  in  their  spirit,  or  inadequacy  in  their  force;  that 
they  ought  to  derive  from  us  the  ability  which  they  wanted,  they 
ought  to  be  counselled  by  our  wisdom,  and  animated  with  our 
ardour,  and  recruited  with  our  strength;  because,  among  all  Ihe 
allied  powers,  I  know  none  to  whom  it  is  more  necessary  that 


12  SARDINIAN   TREATY. 

such  support  should  be  liberally  furnished,  than  to  the  King  of 
Sardinia,  I  shall  cheerfully  give  my  vote  for  referring  the  treaty 
to  a  committee. 


Mr.  Stanley  followed  Mr.  Canning  in  the  debate.  After  having  highly 
eulogized  the  eloquence  of  the  honourable  gentleman  who  preceded  him, 
(whose  speech  was  listened  to  throughout  with  the  deepest  attention,)  he  ex- 
pressed his  approval  of  the  treaty,  and  should  have  done  so,  if  the  subsidy  had 
been  doubled.  Peace  was  at  present  impossible,  and  for  his  part,  he  thought 
the  war  had  not  been  conducted  with  sufficient  vigour.  These  were  his  senti- 
ments as  a  country  gentleman. 

Mr.  Fox  replied ;  after  which  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 


13 


ON  MR.  TIERNEY'S  MOTION  RESPECTING  PEACE 
WITH  THE  FRENCH  REPUBLIC. 

DECEMBER  11  ,1798. 

Mr.  Tierney  felt  himself  impelled  to  make  the  present  motion,  from  a  com- 
parison of  the  situation  of  our  affairs  at  this  moment  with  that  which  it  exhi- 
bited some  time  since.     He  brought  it  forward  principally  to  enter  his  protest 
against  the  new  spirit  that  had  begun  to  rise  up.     The  spirit  he  alluded  to,  was 
that  which  led  to  an  extensive  continental  connexion.     He  regretted  that  the 
pacific  disposition  which  was  manifested  in  His  Majesty's  declaration,  soon  af- 
ter the  conferences  at  Lisle,  had  been  since  abandoned.     The  first  objection 
he  anticipated  to  his  motion,  was,  that  it  broke  in  upon  the  undoubted  power 
which  the  crown  had  of  making  war  or  peace ;  but  this  was  a  point  which 
would  not  be  much  insisted  upon,  when  it  was  considered  that  the  power  of  that 
House  was  unquestionable  with  respect  to  granting  supplies.     It  might  also 
be  said,  that  this  motion  had  a  tendency  to  damp  the  spirit  which  was  rising 
in  Europe.     He  disclaimed  a  wish  to  discourage  such  a  spirit,  and  had  no 
idea  that  his  motion,  if  assented  to,  would  have  such  an  operation.     Indeed, 
he  was  led  to  think  there  teas  no  symptom  of  any  spirit  rising  from  principle 
in  any  quarter.     Look  at  Prussia ;  that  power  had  been  at  peace  for  three 
years  with  the  French  Republic,  and  its  minister  was  treated  there  with  all 
the  respect  which  nations  usually  show  towards  those  with  whom  they  wished 
to  continue  a  good  understanding.     If  we  looked  at  the  Emperor,  we  could  not 
say  there  was  any  dispute  actually  between  him  and  the  French :  there  was, 
indeed,  a  congress  held  at  Radstadt,  but  that  he  believed  was  a  trial  to  make 
the  best  of  a  mere  squabble  for  the  right  and  left  bank  of  a  river.     If  we  looked 
to  Russia,  we  could  not  see  any  tiling  interesting:  he  saw  nothing  from  that 
quarter  but  professions;  neither  did  he  see  any  thing  in  the  conduct  of  the  Ot- 
toman Porte,  which  led  him  to  think  that  the  resentment  shown  in  that  quarter 
was  a  resentment  arising  from  any  principle  on  which  we  could  rest  for  a  per- 
manency.    He  did  not  mean  to  say  that  the  enemy  had  not  been  guilty  of  the 
most  scandalous  injustice,  but  he  did  not  see  any  thing  like  a  systematic  course 
of  opposition  to  the  projects  of  the  enemy.     The  spirit  of  opposition  in  Turkey 
would  cease  when  she  got  what  she  wanted  for  herself — she  would  have  no 
share  in  the  deliverance  of  Europe.     It  would  be  granted  to  him,  he  presumed, 
that  unless  the  confederacy  were  general,  it  could  not  be  attended  with  any  ex- 
tensive advantages.     Now,  with  respect  to  a  confederacy,  it  existed  in  greatest 
force  when  the  unfortunate  monarch  was  under  trial,  and  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  and  when  France  had  not  the  advantage  of  a  settled  government;  when 
her  troops  were  undisciplined — when  she  had  nothing  to  oppose  to  her  difficul- 
ties, but  the  energy  of  her  people.    Compare  the  extended  boundaries  of  France 
now,  with  her  situation  at  the  time  of  the  former  general  confederacy..,  That 
confederacy  failed — its  discomfiture  was  produced  either  by  the  skill  of  the 
French,  or  by  the  jealousy  of  the  confederates;  whichever  of  these  two  causes 
the  House  took,  the  conclusion  was  the  same;  and  in  neither  did  he  see  any 
new  ground  for  hope  from  a  general  confederacy.     The  French  were  not  less 
skilful — their  generals  not  less  able,  nor  their  armies  less  powerful :  and  as  to 
the  allies,  he  did  not  see  any  greater  probability  of  their  adhering  to  each  other 
than  formerly.     Could  we  have  more  confidence  in  Austria  or  Prussia  now  than 
at  a  former  period,  after  we  had  the  experience  of  being  deserted  by  both  1 
Could  any  of  the  powers  expect  much  from  the  co-operation  of  Russia  ?   Be- 

c 


14  ON   MR.   TIERNEY's   MOTION 

sides,  what  was  the  real  advantage  to  be  derived  to  Great  Britain  from  her 
combination  with  these  powers!  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  nations  feel 
what  their  interests  are  now  better  than  formerly.  For  his  part  he  could  not 
conceive  that  any  thing  could  be  done  to  inflame  the  resentment  of  the  confed- 
erates, than  what  had  been  done  already  by  the  French  Republic?  Could  any 
thing  be  done  to  excite  deeper  hatred  in  monarchy  against  French  principles, 
than  the  conduct  held  towards  that  monarch?  Could  the  nobility  of  a  country 
have  deeper  anger  against  any  thing,  than  against  that  conduct  which  abolish- 
ed their  whole  order  at  once?  Would  any  thing  make  the  prayers  of  the  church 
more  fervent  against  anarchy,  than  the  overthrowing  all  church  establishments? 
Could  any  thing  more  enrage  lords  of  manors,  and  such  persons,  than  the  total 
extinction  of  feudal  rights  ?  Yet  these  were  the  men  who  united  against  France, 
and  it  was  from  an  union  of  these  again  we  looked  for  the  deliverance  of  Eu- 
rope. He  would  be  glad  to  see  France  driven  within  her  ancient  limits;  but 
let  us  not  say  we  would  bring  about  the  deliverance  of  Europe — we  could  not 
accomplish  it — and  lie,  therefore,  did  not  wish  that  we  should  make  so  extrava- 
gant an  attempt.  He  would  remind  the  House,  that  ministers  put  into  His  Ma- 
jesty's mouth,  after  the  breaking  up  the  conferences  at  Lisle,  words  tantamount 
to  the  spirit  of  his  motion. 

The  honourable  gentleman  here  read  a  passage*  from  His  Majesty's  declara- 
tion, respecting  the  negotiation  for  peace  with  France.  The  passage  was  ex- 
pressive of  His  Majesty's  disposition  to  conclude  peace  on  moderate  and  equi- 
table principles.  If  this  motion  were  to  be  negatived,  it  would  be  incumbent 
on  those  who  opposed  it,  to  show  what  had  altered  the  course  we  ought  to  take. 
There  were  but  two  reasons  that  he  knew  of,  which  could  be  made  applicable 
to  this  case — one  was  the  aggression  of  the  French  in  Switzerland — no  man 
looked  upon  that  event  with  more  horror  than  he  did ;  but  the  House  should  re- 
member it  was  the  same  in  the  case  of  Venice,  before  the  declaration  he  al- 
luded to.  The  next  reason  was  the  victory  of  Admiral  Nelson;  it  was  unques- 
tionably great  and  glorious;  but  it  should  be  recollected,  the  declaration  was 
made  after  the  brilliant  victory  of  Lord  Duncan.  The  last  objection  to  this 
motion,  he  believed,  was  that  it  might  operate  as  a  notice  to  France,  that  we 
could  not  longer  co-operate  with  our  allies — he  thought  we  certainly  should,  in 
the  first  instance,  seek  an  honourable  peace;  but  if  we  were  to  co-operate,  we 
should  co-operate  only  as  we  hitherto  had  done,  most  effectually  by  our  naval 
exertions.  He  protested  against  the  sending  of  troops  to  the  continent,  and 
against  sending  to  any  of  the  powers  any  pecuniary  assistance  whatever,  either 
under  the  title  of  loan,  subsidy,  or  otherwise.  He  differed  from  those  gentle- 
men who  might  think  this  an  unfavourable  moment  to  proclaim  our  pacific  dis- 
positions. Our  finances  were  in  a  state  to  excite  the  deepest  anxiety.  In  six 
years  we  added  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  to  our  debt,  by  which  we  had 
created  the  necessity  of  adding  to  our  annual  burdens  eight  millions — a  sum 
equal  to  the  whole  of  our  expenditure  when  the  present  monarch  ascended  the 
throne.  Let  us  consider  also  our  situation  at  home — the  Habeas  Corpus  Act 
was  suspended ;  besides,  notwithstanding  all  the  efforts  to  curb  and  repress  re- 
bellion in  Ireland,  further  exertions  were  necessary  for  that  purpose.  If  we 
looked  to  our  establishments  in  the  East,  we  would  see  these  very  large  and 
expensive.  Then  look  at  the  West  Indies:  and  here  the  first  thing  that  pre- 
sented itself  was  the  evacuation  of  St  Domingo;  within  a  few  hours  sail  of  our 
West  India  colonies,  there  was  a  force  of  no  less  than  fifty  thousand  Blacks, 
disciplined  and  trained  to  arms.  The  enemy  had,  if  not  the  first,  certainly  the 
most  successful  general  in  Europe.  Under  these  circumstances,  and  consider- 
ing that  we  had  been  engaged  in  what  was  called  the  common  cause,  for  no 
determinate  object  that  he  could  see,  it  was  time  for  us  to  have  some  separate 
care  of  ourselves.     The  honourable  gentleman  concluded  with  moving: — 

*See  vol.  33,  Pari.  Hist,  page  908— He  looks  with  anxious  expectation. 


RESPECTING   PEACE    WITH    FRANCE.  15 

"That  it  is  the  duty  of  His  Majesty's  ministers  to  advise  His  Majesty,  in  the 
present  crisis,  against  entering  into  engagements  which  may  prevent  or  impede 
a  negotiation  for  peace,  whenever  a  disposition  shall  be  shown,  on  the  part  of  the 
French  Republic,  to  treat  on  terms  consistent  with  the  security  and  interests  of 
the  British  empire.' 

Mr.  Canning: — If  I  might  judge,  Sir,  of  the  impression  made 
by  the  honourable  gentleman's  speech,  from  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  received,  and  particularly  from  the  unusual  degree  of 
apathy  and  languor  which  has  prevailed  on  that  side  of  the  House 
on  which  he  sits,  I  should  be  led  to  believe,  that  the  ardour  man- 
ifested on  this  side  of  the  House  by  my  noble  and  honourable 
friends  who  rose  at  the  same  time  with  me,  was,  perhaps,  more 
than  the  occasion  required: — and  I  assure  you,  Sir,  I  should  not 
have  pressed  myself  upon  your  attention,  if  I  had  thought  the  oc- 
casion one  which  demanded  abilities  like  theirs; — if  I  had  not  felt, 
that  what  arguments  I  have  to  state  in  opposition  to  the  honoura- 
ble gentleman's  motion,  are  so  clear  and  plain  in  themselves,  as 
to  require  little  aid  from  any  talents  in  the  person  who  states 
them.  The  motion  of  the  honourable  gentleman  cannot  be  de- 
nied to  be  of  an  extraordinary  nature;  and  he  has  certainly 
treated  it  in  a  very  extraordinary  manner.  I  conceive  it  to  be 
consonant  as  well  to  the  rules  of  the  House,  as  the  reason  of  the 
thing,  that  the  House  should  not  be  urged  to  the  adoption  of  a 
new  and  unusual  measure,  without  its  being,  in  the  first  place,  es- 
tablished, that  there  exists  some  necessity  for  adopting  it,  or  that 
some  advantage  may  be  gained  by  doing  so.  I  did  expect,  there- 
fore, from  the  honourable  gentleman,  rather  some  solid  reasons  for 
the  measure  which  he  has  proposed,  than  an  anticipation  of  the 
objections  which  he  thought  might  be  urged  against  it.  He  has 
contented  himself,  however,  with  endeavouring  to  destroy  the  va- 
lidity of  several  arguments  which  he  has  heard  out  of  doors,  and 
which  he  expects  to  hear  to-night  against  the  motion  he  has  made; 
but  he  has  omitted,  what  seemed  to  me  to  be  more  peculiarly  in- 
cumbent upon  him,  an  explanation  of  the  motives  which  induced 
him  to  make  it.  I  admit  that  the  honourable  gentleman  has  been 
not  unsuccessful  in  anticipating  several  of  the  most  obvious  and 
prominent  objections  against  his  motion;  I  cannot  think  that  he 
has  been  equally  fortunate  in  removing  them.  I  shall  certainly 
have  occasion,  in  the  course  of  what  I  have  to  say,  to  re-state 
many  or  most  of  those  which  he  has  anticipated,  and  not  without 
the  hope  of  establishing  them  to  the  conviction  of  the  House.  I 
shall  follow  him  through  these  objections,  as  nearly  as  I  can  in 
the  same  order  in  which  he  has  brought  them  forward. 

The  first  objection  which  he  expects  to  hear,  but  upon  which  I 
am  certainly  not  inclined  to  lay  the  greatest  stress,  is  the  point  of 
constitutional  form.     It  is  by  no  means  my  intention  to  contend, 


16  ON   MR.   TIEIINEY'S  MOTION 

that  the  nature  of  the  honourable  gentleman's  motion,  though  ex- 
traordinary, is  wholly  unprecedented, — much  less  to  deny  the 
power  and  the  right  of  the  House  of  Commons,  to  offer  its  ad- 
vice to  His  Majesty,  on  any  subject,  either  of  negotiation,  or  of 
war.  I  know  they  have  at  several  times  interfered  in  both.  It 
is,  indeed,  somewhat  singular,  that  the  honourable  gentleman 
should  not  himself  have  cited  any  of  the  former  instances  of  such 
an  exercise  of  the  right  of  parliament.  Perhaps  he  has  some  re- 
collection, that  a  peculiar  sort  of  fatality  has,  in  almost  every  in- 
stance, seemed  to  attend  interferences  of  this  nature;  that  in  almost 
every  instance,  from  the  Revolution  to  our  own  time,  they  have 
been  either  nugatory  or  mischievous.  I  will  mention  two  only, 
out  of  the  few  that  have  occurred  during  this  period:  the  first, 
— that  which  was  nearest,  in  point  of  time,  to  the  Revolution ;  the 
other, — that  which  is  nearest  to  our  own  time;  the  first,  an  inter- 
ference tending  to  prolong  the  war;  the  other,  intended  to  acceler- 
ate a  peace.  The  first,  the  warlike  measure,  was  the  famous 
vote  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  1707,  "  That  no  peace  could  be 
safe  or  honourable  which  would  leave  Spain  and  the  Spanish 
West  Indies  in  the  possession  of  the  House  of  Bourbon."  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  remind  gentlemen,  that  this  vote,  carried  by 
the  heat  and  violence  of  party,  had  no  effect  whatever;  that  no 
manner  of  regard  was  paid  to  it,  in  the  peace  which  was  after- 
wards negotiated. — And,  whatever  might  be  the  faults  of  that 
peace,  or  however  loud  the  cry  against  the  ministers  who  made 
it,  I  do  not  think  that  any  man,  who  looks  fairly  and  impartially 
at  that  peace  now,  will  say,  that  it  was  any  very  great  crime  in 
those  ministers,  that  they  did  omit  to  carry  this  vote  into  execu- 
tion. The  second  example  to  which  I  refer,  is,  the  resolution 
voted  by  the  House  of  Commons,  respecting  the  "  Independence 
of  America."  Of  a  transaction  so  recent  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
speak  with  the  freedom  of  history.  I  speak,  probably,  in  the 
presence  of  many  who  took  part  in  favour  of  that  resolution — 
of  some  certainly,  who  opposed  it.  Who  were  right,  or  who  were 
wrong,  I  do  not  presume  to  determine.  But  in  one  thing,  I  be- 
lieve, those  who  opposed  and  those  who  promoted  it  will  equally 
concur, — that  the  vote  which  carried  that  resolution  was  an  un- 
fortunate vote;  and  that  it  had  an  influence  fatal  to  the  interest 
of  this  country,  on  the  peace  which  concluded  the  American  war. 
This  was  a  proposition  which  those  who  had  to  make  that  peace 
must,  I  am  sure,  contend  to  be  true;  and  which  those  who  con- 
demned that  peace  would  find  it  difficult  to  deny. 

But  whatever  might  be  the  force  of  precedents,  they  would  not 
of  themselves, — even  if  their  bearing  was  as  much  in  favour  of 
motions  of  this  kind,  as  unfortunately  it  has  been  against  them, — 
they  would  not  of  themselves  be  sufficient  to  justify  the  honour- 


RESPECTING   PEACE   WITH    FRANCE.  17 

able  gentleman's  motion.  It  would,  I  presume,  be  farther  neces- 
sary for  him  to  show  (as  was  shown,  or  attempted  to  be  shown, 
in  all  former  instances,)  that  some  necessity  at  present  exists, 
which  calls  for  such  an  interference  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
I  can  conceive  such  a  necessity  to  arise  only  from  one  of  two  cir- 
cumstances: either  from  the  circumstance  of  some  opening  for 
peace  now  presenting  itself,  of  which  ministers  do  not  show 
themselves  enough  disposed  to  take  advantage; — or  from  minis- 
ters having  at  former  periods  evinced  a  disposition  generally  hos- 
tile to  peace,  which  this  motion  is  intended  to  censure  or  to  control. 
That  any  such  opening  now  exists,  the  honourable  gentleman  has 
not  attempted  to  argue.  I  must,  therefore,  naturally  have  attri- 
buted his  motion  to  a  false  impression  remaining  on  his  mind  of 
the  conduct  of  ministers  in  former  negotiations: — I  must  have 
conceived,  that  he  retained  a  confused  and  perplexed  recollection 
of  what  had  passed  at  Lisle, — that  he  remembered  something  in- 
distinctly of  an  embarrassment  having  been  thrown  in  the  way  of 
the  negotiation  by  a  question  about  allies, — but  utterly  forgot  that 
the  allies  who  created  this  embarrassment  were  the  allies  of 
France  and  not  of  Great  Britain: — and  that,  under  this  mistake, 
he  was  bringing  forward  the  restriction  in  the  wrong  place,  and 
applying  to  this  country,  a  cure  for  the  misconduct  of  the  enemy. 
But  I  am  prevented  from  admitting  even  this  foundation  for  his 
proceeding,  by  the  approbation  which  the  honourable  gentleman 
has  expressed  of  the  manifesto  published  by  this  government,  af- 
ter the  breaking  off  of  the  negotiations  at  Lisle.  The  honourable 
gentleman  distinctly  and  fairly  acknowledges  that  manifesto  to 
have  exhibited  undoubted  proofs  of  the  pacific  dispositions  of  His 
Majesty's  ministers. 

And  here  give  me  leave  to  observe  rather  a  singular  argument, 
which  grows  out  of  the  honourable  gentleman's  peculiar  conduct 
and  situation.  He  tells  you  that  he  brings  forward  this  motion 
as  an  "  unconnected  and  unsupported  individual,"  acting  with  no 
party  or  set  of  men  whatever.  By  agreeing  to  the  motion,  there- 
fore, the  advantage  which  we  are  to  gain  is  his  individual  co-ope- 
ration. It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  he  will  be  more  con- 
vinced of  the  pacific  disposition  of  ministers  after  this  resolution 
shall  have  been  adopted,  than  he  was  after  the  publication  of  the 
manifesto,  which  he  has  so  warmly  commended.  What  was  the 
first  step  that  he  took  by  way  of  co-operation  after  that  manifesto 
was  published?  He  voted  against  the  supply. — Convinced,  that 
His  Majesty  had  done  all  in  his  power  to  obtain  peace; — that  he 
had  gone  almost  beyond  what  could  have  been  expected  of  him, 
in  forbearance  and  moderation; — that  he  had  shown,  even  after 
the  victory  of  Lord  Duncan,  the  most  decided  disposition  to  make 
peace,  upon  fair  and  reasonable  terms; — convinced,  that  the  ab- 
4  C  * 


18  ON   MR.   TIERNEY's  MOTION 

rupt  conclusion  of  the  negotiation  at  Lisle  had  been  the  act  of  the 
enemy  exclusively: — that  the  continuance  of  the  calamities  of 
war  was  to  be  attributed  to  the  arrogance,  and  wickedness,  and 
pride,  of  the  enemy  alone; — that  His  Majesty  had  no  choice; — 
that  he  must  of  necessity  continue  to  carry  on  a  war,  which  the 
mad  ambition  of  that  enemy  would  not  allow  him  to  terminate; — 
in  this  conviction,  to  enable  His  Majesty  to  carry  on  the  war,  the 
honourable  gentleman,  "  unconnected  and  unsupported/'  indi- 
vidually voted  against  the  supply.  I  do  not  mean  to  impeach 
the  honourable  gentleman's  conduct  in  this  instance.  He  had  no 
doubt  his  reasons  for  it.  But  I  do  mean  to  put  it  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  House,  whether,  if  it  should  be  evident  (as  I  trust  It 
will  be)  that  no  solid  and  general  advantage  is  to  be  derived  to 
the  country  from  our  agreeing  to  the  honourable  gentleman's  re- 
solution,— there  is  much  temptation  held  out  to  us  to  do  so,  by 
the  prospect  of  his  future  individual  co-operation;  whether  it  is 
worth  while  to  adopt  an  unusual,  unnecessary,  and  much  more,  a 
mischievous  measure,  to  evince  our  desire  for  peace, — in  order 
to  secure  the  honourable  gentleman's  vote  against  the  supply  for 
carrying  on  the  war.  This,  however,  would  certainly  be  a  very 
inferior  consideration,  if  there  were  any  utility  or  advantage  to 
be  derived  from  the  measure  proposed.  I  have  not  heard  the 
honourable  gentleman  state  any  advantage  as  likely  to  arise  from 
it  to  the  country.  As  he  has  affirmed  nothing  of  this  kind,  I 
have  nothing  of  the  kind  to  deny.  But  there  is  one  way  of  con- 
sidering what  is  advantageous  to  this  country,  to  which  I  confess 
I  am  very  partial;  and  the  rather,  perhaps,  because  it  does  not 
fall  in  with  the  new  and  fashionable  philosophy  of  the  day.  I 
know  it  is  a  doctrine  of  that  large  and  liberal  system  of  ethics 
which  has  of  late  been  introduced  into  the  world,  and  which  has 
superseded  all  the  narrow  prejudices  of  the  ancient  school, — that 
we  are  to  consider  not  so  much  what  is  good  for  our  country,  as 
what  is  good  for  the  human  race;  that  we  are  all  children  of  one 
large  family; — and  I  know  not  what  other  fancies  and  philanthro- 
pies, which  I  must  take  shame  to  myself  for  not  being  able  to 
comprehend.  I,  for  my  part,  still  conceive  it  to  be  the  paramount 
duty  of  a  British  member  of  parliament,  to  consider  what  is  good 
for  Great  Britain:  and  where  no  immediate  advantage  is  pointed 
out  as  obviously  arising  from  any  new  measure  that  is  proposed 
for  our  adoption, — I  hold  it  no  bad  test  to  examine  in  what  way 
it  bears  upon  the  interests  of  France,  and  to  conclude,  however 
unphilosophically,  or  illiberally,  that  what  is  good  for  the  enemy, 
cannot  be  very  good  for  us. 

Now,  Sir,  I  beg  to  have  it  understood, — and  I  assure  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman,  that  I  am  very  far  from  meaning  any  thing 
personally  disrespectful  to  him; — that  I  give  him  full  credit  for 


RESPECTING   PEACE   WITH    FRANCE.  19 

feeling,  as  strongly  as  any  man.  every  thing  that  he  owes  to  his 
country,  for  being  as  ready  as  any  man  to  devote  his  talents  and 
exertions  to  her  service.  I  appeal,  therefore,  not  to  his  feelings, 
but  to  his  judgment  and  ingenuity, — when  I  desire  him  to  con- 
sider, whether  he  could  possibly  devise  any  measure  (capable,  at 
the  present  moment,  of  being  patiently  entertained  by  this  House, 
or  by  the  public,)  which  should  have  a  more  direct  and  manifest 
tendency  to  benefit  France,  than  the  motion  which  he  has  now 
brought  forward?  What  could  any  man — any  member  of  this 
House  (if  it  were  possible  to  suppose  that  there  should  be  such  a 
member  in  this  House),  most  perversely  devoted  to  the  views  of 
the  enemy,  and  bent  upon  exalting  France  at  the  expense  of  Great 
Britain, — what  more  effectual  measure  could  such  a  man  take  for 
such  a  purpose,  than  by  a  motion  like  the  present?  For  what  is 
it  that  the  French  Directory  appear,  by  all  their  conduct,  by  all 
their  publications,  to  dread  and  deprecate  more  than  any  other 
thing  in  the  world?  What  is  it  that  all  their  official  and  unofficial 
papers  most  labour  to  discredit?  What — but  the  revival  of  a  great 
and  general  confederacy  in  Europe,  of  which  England  should  be 
the  animating  soul?  Why  should  we  co-operate  with  the  French 
Directory?  What  interest  can  we  have  in  common  with  them, 
that  should  induce  us  to  take  their  work  out  of  their  hands,  and 
complete  it  for  them?  What  advantage  can  it  be  to  us  to  daunt 
and  dispirit  Europe;  and  to  relieve  the  Directory  from  the  appre- 
hension of  any  powerful  resistance,  or  the  necessity  of  any  ex- 
tensive preparation;  to  maintain  their  influence  abroad,  and  their 
authority  at  home? 

I  will  put  the  question  in  another  way.  I  will  suppose  that  we 
were  now  in  the  last  year  of  the  monarchy  of  France,  instead  of 
the  sixth  or  seventh  year,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  of  the  French 
republic,  one  and  indivisible.  By  the  monarchy,  I  mean,  of 
course,  that  cruel,  wicked,  profligate,  abominable  despotism,  of 
which  we  have  heard  so  many,  and,  no  doubt,  so  just  complaints, 
— which  oppressed  France  with  I  know  not  what  unheard-of 
cruelties, — which  insulted  England,  and  desolated  Europe,  by 
crimes  and  calamities  such  as  can  never  be  imputed  to  the  French 
republic.  I  will  suppose  that  this  monarchy  had  received  so  for- 
midable a  blow  as  has  been  given  to  the  Directory  by  the  victory 
of  the  Nile; — that  its  fleets  had  been  disgraced  and  defeated,  in 
different  expeditions  against  the  British  Empire — that  its  fairest 
provinces  were  in  revolt; — that  its  subjects  were  universally  dis- 
contented;— that  its  commerce  was  extinguished; — its  revenue 
destroyed; — and  its  finances,  by  the  confessions  of  its  ablest 
financiers,  in  a  state  of  utter  and  irrecoverable  ruin  and  bank- 
ruptcy;— thai  against  the  monarchy,  thus  situated,  a  general  spirit 
was  rising  in  Europe: — I  will  suppose  that  under  these  circum- 


20  ON   MR.   TIERNEY's   MOTION 

stances,  the  ministers  of  this  country  had  come  down  to  this 
House,  and  suggested  the  propriety  of  such  a  measure  of  abjura- 
tion and  self-denial  as  is  now  under  consideration:  and  I  will  ask, 
— what  would  have  been  the  clamour  raised  on  the  other  side  of 
the  House? — how  pointedly  would  the  question  have  been  put  to 
ministers,  "  What  are  you  doing?  Why  do  you  interfere  to  ar- 
rest the  downfall  of  this  detestable  tyranny?  Look  on  only — do 
nothing — and  it  will  fall  of  itself.  What  business  is  it  of  yours 
to  rescue  from  destruction  a  power,  so  inordinate  in  its  ambition, 
and  so  hostile  to  the  happiness  of  Europe!" 

Such  would  have  been  the  language  that  we  should  have  heard, 
if  the  monarchy  of  France  had  been  the  object  of  forbearance, 
and  if  ministers  had  been  the  persons  to  advise  us  to  forbear.  I 
will  not  press  similar  interrogations  in  such  a  way  as  to  impute  to 
any  gentleman  improper  and  unjustifiable  partialities: — but  I  can- 
not help  asking,  whether  the  present  gevernment  of  France  be 
indeed  one,  which  has  deserved  so  well  of  this  country, — which, 
to  take  the  question  more  candidly,  has  deserved  so  well  of 
France, — which,  in  the  still  more  large  and  liberal  cant  of  the 
day,  has  deserved  so  well  cf  humanity — as  that  we  should  feel 
ourselves  called  upon  to  take  so  extraordinary  a  step  in  its  behalf? 
And  I  would  farther  ask,  whether, — whatever  be  the  present  de- 
gree of  weakness  or  stability  in  the  government  of  France  (upon 
which  I  give  no  opinion) — whether  the  effect  of  this  motion 
must  not  be  to  prop  its  power,  and  to  come  to  the  aid  of  its  un- 
popularity? whether,  with  this  vote  of  security  in  one  hand,  the 
Directory  might  not  boldly  hold  out  the  Gazette  of  Lord  Nel- 
son's victory  in  the  other,  and  call  upon  the  people  of  France  to 
balance  what  had  been  lost  with  what  had  been  gained? 

But  admitting,  for  the  argument's  sake,  the  object  of  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman's  motion  to  be  advantageous  to  this  country; 
it  would  remain  to  be  seen  how  far  that  object  is  clearly  express- 
ed or  understood,  and  how  far  the  means  which  he  suggests  are 
calculated  for  attaining  it.  The  honourable  gentleman  takes  credit 
to  himself  for  not  limiting  or  defining  in  any  degree,  the  nature 
or  terms  of  the  peace  which  it  is  the  duty  of  His  Majesty's  min- 
isters to  conclude.  If  he  had  not  mentioned  this  omission  as  a 
point  on  which  he  takes  credit  to  himself,  it  is  that  which  I  should 
have  been  tempted  to  select  for  peculiar  disapprobation.  It  seems 
to  me  at  least  a  new  and  unusual  course  of  policy,  instead  of  de- 
fining the  end,  to  contract  the  means  of  action.  It  would  have 
seemed  more  natural  and  more  fair,  to  say  beforehand,  "  Such  or 
such  is  the  peace  with  which  the  country  would  be'  contented, 
and  which  would  be  consistent  with  its  security  and  interests: 
but  the  mode  of  arriving  at  that  peace,  is  what  must  be  left  for 
His  Majesty's  ministers  to  devise:" — this  surely  would  be  fairer 


RESPECTING   PEACE    WITH    FRANCE.  21 

than  to  say,  in  the  language  of  the  present  motion,  "  I  will  not 
tell  you  what  peace  you  ought  to  make; — but  I  will  take  from 
you  one  great  instrument  for  making  any  peace  at  all." 

By  this  motion  what  advice  do  you  give  to  ministers,  or  what 
control  do  you  impose  on  them?  Your  advice  is  certainly  not 
worth  much, — when  you  only  tell  them  how  they  shall  not  pro- 
ceed; but  say  nothing  of  how  they  shall  proceed,  or  whither  they 
shall  go.  Your  control  cannot  be  very  effectual, — since  it  is  they,  it 
seems,  after  all,  who  are  to  remain  the  judges  of  what  is  "  con- 
sistent with  the  security  and  interests"  of  Great  Britain.  These 
interests  and  this  security  must  necessarily  be  considered  with  re- 
lation to  the  different  circumstances  of  the  enemy  and  of  Europe. 
What  might  be  a  secure  peace  for  Great  Britain  with  France  re- 
duced in  power,  and  Europe  at  liberty, — would  no  doubt  be 
highly  unsafe  against  France  in  her  present  state  of  force  and  ag- 
grandizement, with  great  part  of  Europe  at  her  feet,  and  the  re- 
sources of  other  nations  at  her  disposal.  It  is  equally  clear,  that 
it  would  be  more  difficult  for  us,  single  and  unassisted,  to  extort 
from  France  such  terms  as  would  be  consistent  with  our  interests, 
than  to  obtain  the  same  terms,  if  backed  by  a  powerful  confede- 
racy in  Europe.  The  declaration  conveyed  to  France  by  this 
motion,  that  we  are  determined,  at  all  events,  to  treat  singly, 
would  naturally  inflame  her  pride,  and  increase  her  demands. 
The  declaration  that  we  make  no  common  cause  with  other  na- 
tions, Avould  necessarily  place  those  nations  at  her  mercy,  or  on 
her  side.  The  effect  of  the  motion  must,  therefore,  be  to  dimin- 
ish alike  the  probable  advantages  of  the  peace  to  be  obtained,  and 
our  power  of  obtaining  it.  It  prescribes  a  more  difficult  end  to 
be  accomplished,  with  less  efficacious  means.  At  the  same  time, 
it  does  not  tend  to  hasten  the  conclusion  of  even  such  a  peace,  as 
with  such  means  might  possibly  be  obtained;  for  it  leaves  minis- 
ters at  liberty  to  conclude  no  peace,  which  they  do  not  think 
"consistent  witli  the  security  and  interests"  of  the  country: — 
and  if  they  should  choose  to  think,  (which  they  very  probably 
and  very  laudably  might),  that  no  peace  would  deserve  this  char- 
acter, which  should  not  provide  for  the  safety  of  Europe; — what 
assurance  docs  this  motion  give  you  against  a  hopeless  prolonga- 
tion of  the  war? 

Sir,  the  hon.  gentleman's  purpose,  if  I  at  all  comprehend  it,  re- 
quired that  lie  should  have  made  the  latter  part  of  his  motion  as 
distinct  as  the  beginning.  If  he  had  done  so, — if  he  had  fairly 
.stated  the  idea  which  he  has  in  his  own  mind, — 1  apprehend  that, 
instead  of  the  circumlocution  of  a  peace  "consistent  with  security 
and  interests,"  &c,  we  should  have  heard  of  a  separate  peace. 
I  confess,  that  this  was  what  I  was  prepared  to  expect.  1  expect- 
v  ed  it  the  rather,  from  comparing  the  general  reasoning  of  tin1  lion. 


22  ON   MR.    TIERNEY'S  MOTION 

gentleman  with  respect  to  separate  ivar, — with  what  is  reported 
to  have  been  said  upon  the  same  topic  in  another  place  by  a  noble 
statesman  of  great  consideration  and  celebrity — a  statesman,  who 
to  a  life  of  political  activity  has  had  the  advantage  of  adding  an 
age  of  retirement  and  reflection.  This  great  authority,  (I  under- 
stand) recommended,  as  the  only  sort  of  war  that  suited  the  cir- 
cumstances of  this  country, — a  tight,  snug,  little,  domestic  war; 
in  which  our  exertions  should  be  confined  at  home;  in  which  we 
should  not  stretch  an  arm  beyond  the  circumference  of  our  own 
dominions,  but  should  sit  down  with  our  navy  collected  about  us, 
and  turn  round  upon  our  own  axis,  without  reference  to  the  rest 
of  the  world.  The  main  advantage  stated  as  likely  to  result  from 
this  system  was,  that  our  sailors  would  spend  their  wages  at 
home: — the  noble  statesman  ought  to  have  added,  to  heighten  the 
glowing  picture,  that  they  would  spend  them  in  exciseable  com- 
modities. This  system  of  separate  war  was  evidently  calculated 
to  lead  ultimately  to  separate  peace:  as,  indeed,  its  illustrious  pro- 
mulgator avowed.  I  imagined  that  the  hon.  gentleman,  in  adopt- 
ing the  premises  of  the  noble  statesman,  must  be  prepared  like- 
wise to  adopt  his  conclusion.  I  should  certainly  disapprove  of 
both — because  I  cannot  but  apprehend  that  a  war  so  very  like 
peace,  would  lead  to  a  peace  that  would  be  very  like  war — that  a 
contest  (if  contest  it  might  be  called)  in  which  we  should  be 
afraid  to  employ  our  forces,  would  lead  to  a  pacification  at  which 
we  should  be  afraid  to  disband  them.  And  this  opinion  I  venture 
to  entertain,  in  opposition  to  such  high  authority;  because  I  think 
I  have  on  my  side  the  eternal  and  immutable  truth, — that  the  ob- 
jects of  human  desire  are  attainable  only  by  human  exertion; — 
that  never  yet  did  inaction  beget  repose,  or  a  want  of  energy  and 
spirit  secure  permanent  and  unmolested  tranquillity. 

The  system  of  separation,  however,  is  defended  upon  another 
ground.  It  is  conceded  with  great  candour,  that  the  conduct  of 
France  is  very  bad;  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  contended,  that  the 
other  powers  of  Europe  are  very  bad,  too;  and  that  the  less  we 
have  to  do  with  either  of  them,  the  better.  I  must  take  leave, 
Sir,  in  the  first  place,  to  observe  upon  the  affectation  which  has 
grown  up  among  those  who  argue  against  the  war,  of  pairing  off 
the  enormities  of  France  against  the  imputed  crimes  of  regular 
governments.  No  sooner  is  any  fresh  act  of  atrocity,  cruelty, 
perfidy,  or  injustice,  on  the  part  of  the  French  Republic,  brought 
forward  in  argument,  than  recourse  is  had  to  some  stale  trite  topic 
of  declamation,  which  has  been  used  a  hundred  and  a  hundred 
times  against  Russia,  Prussia,  Austria,  or  the  old  government  of 
France.  During  Robespierre's  reign,  the  favourite  pair  for  every 
one  of  his  noyades,  and  fusillades,  his  crowded  dungeons,  and 
sweeping  executions, — was  the  imprisonment  of  Lafayette!   The 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  FRANCE.        23 

partition  of  Poland,  too! — (a  measure  which  I  have  no  thoughts 
of  justifying,)  against  how  many  detestable,  impious,  and  tyranni- 
cal outrages,  invasions,  confiscations,  rapines,  and  massacres  of  the 
French  government,  has  not  the  partition  of  Poland  been  cited  as 
a  parallel !  It  has  really,  Sir,  been  called  into  service  so  often,  that 
it  ought  no  longer  to  be  considered  as  a  pair.  It  is  time  to  agree, 
that,  at  least,  in  any  future  enormities  of  France,  she  shall  not 
have  a  set-off  in  the  partition  of  Poland. 

But,  after  all,  to  what  does  this  argument  at  best  amount?  The 
world  is  a  bad  world,  and  we  are,  therefore,  to  withdraw  our- 
selves from  it.  Good: — if  this  were,  indeed,  practicable;  if  it  re- 
mained for  us  to  choose  whether  we  would  make  a  part  of  this 
world  or  no; 

"  If  Heav'n  would  make  us  such  another  world 

Of  one  entire  and  perfect  chrysolite," 

where  all  should  be  pure,  and  perfect,  and  without  a  flaw.  But 
if  we  are,  in  spite  of  ourselves,  compelled  to  belong  to  the  world 
in  which  we  are  placed,  I  know  not  whether  it  be  not  more  manly, 
more  statesman-like,  and  more  virtuous,  too,  to  make  the  best  of 
it; — to  do  what  we  can  with  the  materials  which  we  have;  and  to 
endeavour  to  work  out  our  own  happiness,  even  though  we  should 
not  be  able  to  separate  and  disconnect  it  from  the  happiness  of  our 
fellow  creatures. 

I  think  this  is  a  more  rational  conduct  than  the  sort  of  national 
secession  which  the  hon.  gentleman's  motion  goes  to  recommend. 
I  know  of  no  justifiable  reason  for  such  a  secession, — I  can  con- 
ceive no  motive  for  it,  consistent  with  true  sense  of  right,  and 
just  dignity  of  character.  I  know  not  how  we  could  reconcile  it 
to  ourselves  (if  it  were  practicable)  to  withdraw  into  gloomy  sol- 
itude, and  "  grim  repose:"  while  we  have  talents  which  God  has 
given  us  for  the  benefit  of  our  fellow  creatures,  and  while  we 
have  a  station  which  affords  us  an  opportunity  of  employing  those 
talents  to  that  purpose.  It  is  not  under  such  circumstances  that  I 
can  conceive  it  to  be  excusable,  to  indulge  a  whim,  and  fretful- 
ncss,  and  peevishness  of  temper,  from  personal  spleen  and  petty 
resentment,  because  every  thing  does  not  go  exactly  as  we  would 
have  it.  I  can  conceive  no  cause,  except  sullen  discontent,  and 
disappointed  ambition,  which  could  lead  us  to  abjure  communion 
with  mankind.  For  discontent,  as  a  nation,  God  be  thanked,  we 
have  no  ground!  Ours  has  been  a  generous  ambition,  and  it  has 
not  been  disappointed,  so  far  as  we  are  ourselves  concerned;  but 
it  looks  to  larger  and  more  elevated  objects, — to  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  world.  If,  indeed,  a  full  gratification  of  ambi- 
tious views  were  a  sufficient  reason  for  retirement,  we  mi ghl  fair- 
ly and  proudly  retire,  and  say,  with  truth  and  confidence,  thai  we 
have  acted  our  part.     If  we  had  undertaken  the  war  for  territorial 


24  ON   MR.    TIEE.NEY's  MOTION 

aggrandizement, — it'  we  had  been  impelled  to  it  by  a  thirst  of 
naval  glory. — we  might,  indeed,  sit  down  contented  with  our 
conquests,  when  there  is  scarcely  any  thing  left  us  to  acquire;  we 
might  patise,  satiated  with  victory,  when  we  have  no  longer  an 
enemy  to  subdue.  But  we  did  not  undertake  the  war  for  these 
objects.  Undertake  it.  indeed  we  did  in  no  sense:  it  was  forced 
upon  us  by  the  aggression  and  ambition  of  our  enemy:  we  were 
compelled  to  eng  _  in  it  for  our  safety  and  defence. — not  in  lo- 
cal, partial,  and  insulated  points,  but  in  those  points  in  which  our 
safety  is  connected  and  bound  up  with  the  safety,  honour,  and  in- 
terests of  Europe. 

"But  what."  say  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House, 
"is  the  distinct  object  for  which  we  are  engaged?" — Gentlemen 
put  this  question,  as  if  an  object  were  a  corporeal  substance:  as 
if  it  was  something  tangible,  something  that  could  be  taken  in  the 
hand  and  laid  upon  your  table,  and  turned  round  and  round  be- 
fore them  for  accurate,  ocular  examination.  In  this  sense  I  pro- 
fess myself  perfectly  unable  to  satisfy  them.  But  do  they  moan 
something  less  pre  ;-  ■  than  this,  (though  scarcely  less  so) — the 
statement  of  some  one  distinct  term,  the  obtaining  of  which  is  to 
be  settled  beforehand  as  a  sine  qua  ?ion  condition  of  peace?  If 
they  do  mean  this,  are  they  really  prepared  to  argue  that  such  a 
statement,  supposing  it  could  be  made,  would  be  politic,  would 
be  prudent. — particularly  with  a  view  to  the  facilitating  or  accel- 
erating a  pacification?  Do  they  not  believe — is  it  not  evident — 
that  if  it  had  any  effect,  it  would  have  an  effect  exactly  the  con- 
trary ?  Do  they  think  the  resolution  of  1707.  for  instance,  to 
which  I  have  already  referred,  had  a  tendency  to  promote,  or  to 
retard  peace?  That  resolution,  indeed,  we  know  was  not  adhered 
to.  Was  it  then  politic  to  have  passed  it?  Or.  would  the  gentle- 
men be  contented  with  the  statement  of  an  object  to  which  we 
did  not  mean  to  adhere?  Would  thev  gain  anv  thing  bv  this? 
Would  this  give  facility  to  peace,  or  vigour  to  war?  Would  it 
contribute  to  any  possible  purpose  that  could  be  in  any  way  ben- 
eficial to  the  country? 

That  we  have  objects,  great  and  momentous  objects,  in  our 
view,  there  is  no  man  that  must  not  feel.  I  can  have  no  difficulty 
in  declaring,  that  the  most  complete  and  desirable  termination  ot 
the  contest  would  be  the  deliverance  of  Europe.  I  am  told,  in- 
deed, that  there  are  persons  who  affect  not  to  understand  this 
phrase:  who  think  there  is  something  confused,  something  in- 
volved, something  of  studied  ambiguity  and  concealment  in  it.  I 
cannot  undertake  to  answer  for  other  gentlemen's  powers  of  com- 
prehension. The  map  of  Europe  is  before  them.  I  can  only 
say,  that  I  do  not  admire  that  man's  intellects,  and  I  do  not  envy 
fchat  man's  feelings,  who  can  look  over  that  map  without  gather- 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  FRANCE.       25 

ing  some  notion  of  what  is  meant  by  the  deliverance  of  Europe. 
I  do  not  envy  that  man's  feelings,  who  can  behold  the  sufferings 
of  Switzerland,  and  who  derives  from  that  sight  no  idea  of  what 
is  meant  by  the  deliverance  of  Europe.  I  do  not  envy  the  feel- 
ings of  that  man,  who  can  look  without  emotion  at  Italy, — plun- 
dered, insulted,  trampled  upon,  exhausted,  covered  with  ridicule, 
and  horror,  and  devastation; — who  can  look  at  all  this,  and  be  at 
a  loss  to  guess  what  is  meant  by  the  deliverance  of  Europe?  As 
little  do  I  envy  the  feelings  of  that  man,  who  can  view  the  people 
of  the  Netherlands  driven  into  insurrection,  and  struggling  for 
their  freedom  against  the  heavy  hand  of  a  merciless  tyranny, 
without  entertaining  any  suspicion  of  what  may  be  the  sense  of 
the  word  deliverance.  Does  such  a  man  contemplate  Holland 
groaning  under  arbitrary  oppressions  and  exactions?  Does  he  turn 
his  eyes  to  Spain  trembling  at  the  nod  of  a  foreign  master?  And 
does  the  word  deliverance  still  sound  unintelligibly  in  his  ear? 
Has  he  heard  of  the  rescue  and  salvation  of  Naples,  by  the  ap- 
pearance and  the  triumphs  of  the  British  fleet?  Does  he  know 
that  the  monarchy  of  Naples  maintains  its  existence  at  the  sword's 
point?  And  is  his  understanding,  and  is  his  heart,  still  impenetra- 
ble to  the  sense  and  meaning  of  the  deliverance  of  Europe? 

Sir,  that  we  shall  succeed  in  effecting  this  general  deliverance, 
I  do  not  pretend  to  affirm.  That  in  no  possible  case  we  should 
lay  down  our  arms  and  conclude  a  peace  before  it  is  fully  effect- 
ed, I  do  not  mean  to  argue.  But  that  this  is  the  object  which  we 
ought  to  have  in  view,  even  if  we  look  to  our  own  safety  only, — 
that  of  this  we  ought  to  accomplish  as  much  as  our  means,  our 
power,  our  exertions,  our  opportunities  will  allow, — I  do  most 
anxiously  contend.  If  circumstances  should  unhappily  arise  to 
make  the  attainment  of  the  object  hopeless,  it  will  be  time  enough 
when  they  do  arise,  to  give  up  the  hopes  of  attaining  it: — but  do 
not  let  us  run  before  misfortune,  do  not  let  us  presume  disappoint- 
ment, and  anticipate  the  necessity  of  disgrace! 

But  it  is  contended  and  justly  contended,  that  the  deliverance 
of  Europe  cannot  be  effected  by  our  exertions  alone:  and  that, 
unless  other  powers  are  sincerely  disposed  to  co-operate,  we 
are  setting  out  on  a  romantic  and  absurd  and  impracticable  enter- 
prise, which  we  have  neither  any  chance  of  accomplishing,  nor 
any  duty  or  call  to  undertake.  I  perfectly  agree,  that  if  other 
powers  are  not  disposed  to  co-operate,  we  have  no  reasonable 
chance  of  succeeding  to  the  extent  of  our  wishes.  But  I  cannot 
help  asking,  at  the  same  time — If  there  be  no  such  disposition  on 
the  part  of  other  powers,  where  is  the  use,  or  what  is  the  neces- 
sity for  the  hon.  <j;eiilleman's  motion?  Why  need  parliament  in- 
terfere to  prevent  His  Majesty's  ministers  from  taking  advantage 
of  dispositions  which  do  not  exist,  and  from  accepting  eo-opera- 
5  n 


26  ON   MR.   TIERNEY'S   MOTION 

tion  which  will  not  be  offered  ?  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
powers  of  Europe,  or  any  of  them,  are  ready  to  do  their  part  to- 
wards the  common  salvation,  and  want  but  our  countenance  and 
encouragement  to  begin;  if  the  train  is  laid, — if  the  sparks  of  en- 
mity and  resentment,  which  the  aggressions  of  France  have  kin- 
dled in  every  nation  throughout  Europe,  want  but  our  breath  to 
blow  them  into  conflagration;  is  it  the  dictate  of  our  duty,  our  in- 
terest, or  our  feelings,  to  save  France  from  destruction, — and  by 
a  coarse  and  hasty  proceeding,  like  that  which  is  now  recom- 
mended to  us,  to  throw  a  wet  blanket  on  the  flames  ? 

If,  however,  the  co-operation  of  allies  should  be  offered,  we 
are  called  upon  to  receive  them  with  suspicion  and  distrust;  and 
to  be  assured,  from  the  fate  of  former  confederacies,  from  the 
manner  in  which  we  have  been  duped  and  deceived  heretofore, 
that  no  fidelity  to  engagements,  and  no  consistency  of  conduct,  is 
to  be  expected  from  the  continental  powers.     It  seems  to  me  that 
this  is  rather  a  hard,  unfair,  and  hasty  judgment.     When  it  is 
contended,  that  because  Austria  and  Prussia  have  been  unfaithful 
to  our  alliance,  and  have  made  peace  at  different  times  in  a  man- 
ner equally  inconsistent  with  their  engagements  and  their  inter- 
ests,— Russia  and  the  Porte  must,  therefore,  be  considered  as 
equally  faithless,  equally  worthless  allies,  as  powers  on  whom  no 
reliance  can  be  placed,  and  from  whose  exertions  no  advantage 
can  be  expected; — when  the  errors  of  the  guilty  are  thus  made  to 
furnish  a  ground  of  presumption  against  the  innocent; — I  have 
too  much  respect  for  the  hon.  gentleman,  to  say,  that  he  reasons 
falsely,  or  feebly;  but  I  must  say,  that  if  I  had  ever  happened  to 
meet  with  such  a  train  of  reasoning,  upon  any  other  subject,  in 
any  other  place,  I  should  have  had  little  hesitation  in  condemning 
it  as  illogical  and  inconclusive.     Of  the  treatment,  indeed,  which 
the  Ottoman  Porte  receives,  I  think  we  have  some  reason  to  com- 
plain.    Gentlemen  seem  to  think  that  when  they  have  quoted  the 
words  of  His  Majesty's  speech,  "  the  vigour  and  decision  of  the 
Ottoman  Porte,"  they  have   entirely  settled  the   question;   that 
they  have  stated  something  obviously  and  palpably  absurd  and  ri- 
diculous:— and  the  smile  with  which  this  quotation  is  received  by 
those  who  surround  them,  must  very  much  encourage  them  in 
that  idea.     They  seem  to  think,  that  because  the  Grand  Seignior 
wears  a  long  beard  and  a  long  gown,  and  is  altogether  a  figure 
such  as  we  are  not  accustomed  every  day  to  contemplate, — to  ex- 
pect vigour  and  decision,  or  good  sense  or  sound  policy  from  him, 
is  an  expectation  in  the  highest  degree  wild  and  fantastical. 

I  cannot,  for  my  life,  bring  myself  to  understand  where  all  this 
ridicule  lies.  I  know  not  why  the  Grand  Seignior  should  not 
take  as  correct  a  view  of  his  interests,  as  any  other  power  whose 
customs  may  be  more  conformable  to  our  own.     I  am  sure  that 


RESPECTING    PEACE    WITH    FRANCE.  27 

the  Declaration  (which  we  have  all  seen)  of  the  motives  which 
have  guided  the  conduct  of  the  Porte,  is  as  able  and  masterly  a 
composition,  as  correct  in  principles  of  justice,  and  as  sound  in 
principles  of  policy,  as  any  state  paper  that  ever  wTas  published 
by  any  cabinet  of  Europe.  And  if  the  dress  and  decorations  of 
the  Turk  be  all  that  strikes  the  hon.  gentleman  as  ridiculous: — I 
know  not  why  I  should  forbear  to  take  the  benefit  that  might  re- 
sult to  my  arguments,  from  calling  your  attention  to  the  antic 
mummeries  and  tri-coloured  trumpery  of  the  enlightened  Execu- 
tive Directory  of  France.  But  I  know,  if  I  were  to  do  so,  Sir,  I 
should  be  censured  as  illiberal,  unphilosophical,  and — (there  is  an- 
other word  in  fashion,  which  I  had  almost  forgotten) — uncandid. 
Allow  me,  Sir,  only  to  claim  the  same  candour  and  liberality  for 
the  Turk. 

But  your  Turk  is  a  Mahometan,  it  seems,  and,  therefore,  an 
ally  not  fit  for  a  Christian! — I  do  not  know,  Sir,  but  an  alliance 
with  a  Mahometan  may  be  as  good  as  a  peace  with  an  Atheist; 
the  sanction  of  its  engagements  may,  perhaps,  be  as  sacred,  and 
its  stipulations  as  likely  to  be  fulfilled. 

But  he  is  a  sluggish  Turk;  slow  to  anger,  and  hard  to  be  driven 
into  action.  If  that  be  his  character,  what  must  be  the  provoca- 
tions which  have  roused  him ! 

But  then  comes  the  worst  of  all: — the  Turks  and  Russians  are 
naturally  enemies;  and  yet  here  we  find  them  most  unnaturally  al- 
lied together  against  a  common  enemy.  In  the  first  place,  Sir,  it  is 
a  little  hard,  that,  when  in  favour  of  France,  all  notions  of  received 
and  establshed  policy,  and  of  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe,  are 
to  be  utterly  disregarded,  and  put  out  of  the  question — there  is 
yet  to  be  no  combination  against  France,  but  upon  principles 
strictly  conformable  to  them.  But,  after  all,  what  is  there  in  this 
argument?  What  does  it  prove, — but  that  the  aggressions  of 
France  have  been  so  multiplied,  so  various,  and  so  extraordinary, 
as  to  unite  against  her  powers  the  most  opposite  in  nature  and  in 
interest,  as  to  make  the  necessity  of  resistance,  and  the  duty  of 
self-preservation  supersede  every  narrower  consideration,  every 
motive  of  more  particular  and  contracted  policy. 

Did  gentlemen  suppose,  then,  that  there  is  such  a  magic  force 
in  the  hostility  of  France,  that  if  she  attacks,  at  the  same  time, 
two  powers,  naturally  enemies  to  each  other,  the  recollection  of 
their  previous  hostility  shall  deprive  each  of  them  of  the  capacity 
of  sell-defence?  Did  any  body  ever  see,  or  hear,  or  read  of  an  in- 
stance of  such  rooted,  and  unconquerable,  and  unreasonable  antip- 
athy? Can  they  conceive  this  in  individual  instances?  If  a  man 
comes  against  me  with  a  sword  stained  will)  the  blood  of  my  ene- 
my, am  I,  therefore,  to  make  no  resistance  to  his  attack? 

For  our  old  allies,  however,  it  is  taken  for  granted,  that  no 


28  ON    MR.    TIERNEY'S  MOTION 

apology  can  be  made.  No  good  reason  (it  is  contended)  can  be 
given,  why  they  should  not  be  more  worthy  of  our  confidence, 
more  steady  to  our  interests  and  their  own,  than  they  have  proved 
themselves  in  the  former  confederacy.  The  honourable  gentle- 
man has  anticipated  an  argument  which  he  is  apprehensive  may 
be  drawn  from  the  change  of  circumstances  in  Europe,  and  from 
the  conviction  which  is  grown  up  within  this  last  year,  respecting 
the  real  views  and  intentions  of  France.  This  argument  the  ho- 
nourable gentleman  has  anticipated,  and  declares  he  see3  nothing 
in  it.  The  honourable  gentleman  is  right  in  his  anticipation.  I 
certainly  am  disposed  to  use  this  argument;  and  I  certainly  am 
equally  disposed  to  differ  from  the  honourable  gentleman  as  to 
its  force  and  validity. 

I  would  ask  the  honourable  gentleman,  I  would  ask  every  man 
in  the  House,  whether  he  does  not  know — personally  and  inti- 
mately know — many  individuals  in  this  country,  the  whole  course 
and  current  of  whose  ideas,  with  respect  to  France,  have  of  late 
been  entirely  changed  ?  Does  he  not  believe  that  the  invasion  of 
Switzerland,  for  instance,  that  the  profligate,  swindling  transaction 
with  America,  that  the  event  of  the  negotiation  at  Lisle,  worked 
a  great  change  in  the  public  mind  in  this  country?  Is  not  the  ho- 
nourable gentleman  acquainted  with  great  and  illustrious  converts 
among  what  some  persons  have  deemed  the  most  able,  the  most 
enlightened,  and  most  respectable  characters  of  the  age?  And  by 
what  rule,  either  of  justice  or  of  reason,  does  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman propose  to  limit  the  benefits  of  experience  to  his  own 
countrymen  alone  ?  Is  it  not  possible  that  the  statesmen  of  Aus- 
tria or  of  Prussia  may  have  caught  some  light  from  what  has 
passed  upon  the  continent  of  Europe  ?  May  not  Baron  Thugut  or 
Count  Haugwitz  have  declared  (though  not,  perhaps,  in  a  public 
tavern,)  at  Berlin  or  Vienna,  that  "  France  has  thrown  off  the 
mask,  if  ever  she  wore  it?"  Would  not  they  be  to  be  believed  if 
they  had  made  such  a  declaration?  Is  there  any  thing  that  should 
make  their  profession  incredible,  and  their  conviction  suspicious? 
Or  is  it  to  the  enlightened  wisdom,  to  the  penetrating  and  perspi- 
cacious sagacity,  to  the  firm  and  inflexible  virtue  of  our  patriot 
statesmen  alone,  that  we  would  confine  the  plea  of  credulity,  and 
restrict  the  privilege  of  recantation  ? 

I,  Sir,  do  not  see  the  justice  of  such  a  restriction  and  limita- 
tion: and  I  confess  I  should  try  the  sincerity  of  such  a  recanta- 
tion by  one  test  alone;  by  observing  whether  or  not  it  were  fol- 
lowed by  any  act  that  corresponded  with  its  spirit  and  its  meaning. 
It  has  been  observed  by  ancient  philosophers,  that  if  virtue  could 
be  brought  to  perfection  and  consummation  in  any  human  mind, 
the  possessor  of  it  would  still  be  an  imperfect  creature,  inasmuch 
as  the  consciousness  of  his  own  excellence  would  weaken  in  him 


RESPECTING   PEACE   WITH   FRANCE.  29 

one  of  the  first  and  most  amiable  qualities  of  human  nature — the 
indulgence  for  the  frailties  of  his  fellow  creatures.  It  is,  I  sup- 
pose, from  some  such  cause  as  this,  that  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House  show  themselves  so  little  indulgent  to 
the  failings  and  errors  of  our  allies.  Conscious  that  nothing  of 
French  artifice,  or  French  wickedness,  could  deceive  or  impose 
upon  them,  they  cannot  forgive  the  folly  and  stupidity  of  those 
who  have  suffered  themselves  for  a  moment  to  be  so  deluded: 
nay,  they  are  hardly  content  to  ascribe  the  delusion  to  folly;  but 
are  forward  to  insinuate  a  suspicion  of  sympathy  and  fellow-feeling 
with  France. 

We,  Sir,  who  have  not  the  same  consciousness  of  infallibility  in 
ourselves,  are  naturally  averse  from  such  suspicion,  and  more  dis- 
posed to  make  good-natured  allowances.  And  I  protest,  for  one, 
that  if  the  ministers  whom  I  have  mentioned,  Baron  Thugut,  and 
Count  Haugwitz, — nay,  if  even  their  masters,  the  Emperor  of 
Germany,  and  the  King  of  Prussia,  had  pledged  themselves  yet 
deeper  to  a  mistaken  opinion  of  France; — if  the  forms  of  the 
House  had  admitted  of  their  being  brought  to  your  bar,  and  there, 
Sir,  before  God  and  the  country,  swearing  upon  their  oaths  and 
upon  their  honour,  that  they  believed — nay,  swearing  that  they 
always  would  continue  to  believe, — that  the  government  of  France 
was  the  gentlest,  quietest,  purest,  noblest,  faithfullest,  best  of  go- 
vernments;— that  it  abhorred  and  detested,  above  all  things,  the 
idea  of  foreign  interference  with  the  government  of  other  coun- 
tries;— that  the  character  of  the  Directory  had  something  in  it 
of  peculiar  candour,  ingenuity  and  openness; — that  they  (the  wit- 
nesses) spoke  to  these  facts  from  their  own  certain  knowledge, — 
for  that  they  had  lived  upon  terms  of  the  most  confidential  inter- 
course with  the  Directory,  and  their  communications  had  been  al- 
most entirely  upon  subjects  of  a  political  nature: — If,  I  say,  Sir, 
such  had  been  the  testimony  in  favour  of  France,  given  with  all 
the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  by  the  great  personages  to  whom  I  have 
referred; — I  should  yet  be  willing  to  allow  some  credit  to  their 
asservation,  if  they  were  now  to  come  forward  and  tell  us,  that 
the  circumstances  of  the  conduct  of  France  since  the  time  when 
this  testimony  was  given,  that,  above  all,  the  declarations  and  con- 
fessions of  France  herself  had  completely  changed  their  opinion; 
had  detected  the  fraud  which  had  been  practised  upon  their 
judgment,  and  had  convinced  them  of  the  profligacy,  the  atrocity, 
and  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Directory.  I  say,  Sir,  I  should  be  wil- 
ling to  t^ivu  full  credit  to  this  penitent  retraction.  I  should 
be  willing  even  to  profit  by  their  offers  of  future  co-operation 
against  France.  Nor  do  I  well  see  on  what  ground  the  honoura- 
ble gentlemen  could  reject  such  offers,  unless  they  are  prepared 
to  argue  (which  if  they  are,    on   their  own  judgments  be  the  re- 

D  * 


30  ON   MR.   TIERNEY's   MOTION 

sponsibility, — I  do  not  presume  to  give  any  opinion  for  or  against 
such  a  proposition,)  that  "  no  man  who  has  once  been  contami- 
nated by  the  communion  of  French  principles, — who  has  been 
drawn,  however  innocently  or  mistakenly,  into  an  approbation 
and  encouragement  of  persons  acting  upon  these  principles, — can 
ever  again  be  a  sound  man."  I,  for  my  part,  should  in  such  a 
case  incline  to  believe  the  recantation  sincere,  and  to  act  upon  it 
as  such; — unless,  indeed,  at  the  moment  of  making  it,  the  same 
person  were  to  say  to  me,  "  I  do  not,  however,  so  much  disap- 
prove of  French  principles  in  themselves:  I  only  doubt  the  pro- 
priety of  their  application." — Then,  indeed,  I  admit,  that  I  should 
distrust  him  again  as  much  as  ever. 

So  much,  Sir,  as  to  the  particular  argument,  that  the  past  con- 
duct of  our  former  allies  ought  to  lead  us  to  withhold  all  credit 
from  their  future  professions.  There  is,  however,  another  and  a 
more  general  argument,  comprehending  alike  these  and  the  other 
powers  of  Europe;  which,  but  that  it  has  been  stated  by  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman,  I  should  really  have  thought  scarcely  worth 
confutation.  We,  it  seems — a  wise,  prudent,  reflecting  people — 
are  much  struck  with  all  the  outrages  that  France  has  committed 
upon  the  continent;  but  on  the  powers  of  the  continent  itself,  no 
lasting  impression  has  been  made.  Is  this  probable  ?  Is  it  possi- 
ble ?  Is  it  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  the  contemplation  of  the 
wrongs  and  miseries  which  others  have  endured,  should  have 
worked  a  deeper  impression  upon  our  minds,  than  the  suffering 
of  those  miseries  and  wrongs  has  left  on  the  minds  of  those  upon 
whom  they  were  actually  inflicted? 

"  Segnius  irritant  animos  demissa  per  aures, 
Quam  quse  sunt  oculis  subjecta  ndelibus." 

Yet  the  echo  and  report  of  the  blows  by  which  other  countries 
have  fallen,  are  supposed  to  have  had  more  effect  upon  us,  than 
the  blows  themselves  produced  upon  the  miserable  victims  who 
sunk  beneath  them. 

The  pillage  and  bloody  devastation  of  Italy  strike  us  with  hor- 
ror;— but  Italy,  we  are  to  believe,  is  contented  with  what  has  be- 
fallen her.  The  insults  which  are  hurled  by  the  French  garrison 
from  the  walls  of  the  citadel  of  Turin  rouse  resentment  in  our 
breasts;  but  have  no  effect  on  the  feelings  of  the  Piedmontese. 
We  read  with  indignation  of  the  flag  of  Bernadotte  displayed  in 
mockery  and  insult  to  the  Emperor  and  his  subjects;  but  it 
flaunted  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  Vienna  without  exciting 
any  emotions  of  hatred  or  resentment.  The  invasion  of  a  prov- 
ince of  a  friendly  power,  with  whom  they  had  no  cause  nor  pre- 
text for  hostility,  has  created  in  us  a  decided  detestation  for  the 
unprincipled  hypocrisy  and  ambition  of  the  Directory;  but  the 


RESPECTING   PEACE   WITH   FRANCE.  3] 

Ottoman  Porte  sits  down  contented  with  the  loss  of  Egypt;  feels 
no  injury,  and  desires  neither  reparation  nor  revenge. 

And  then,  Sir,  the  wrongs  of  Switzerland !  They,  too,  are  cal- 
culated to  excite  an  interest  here;  but  the  Swiss  no  doubt  endure 
them  with  quiet  resignation,  and  contented  humility.  If,  after 
the  taking  of  Soleure,  the  venerable  magistrates  of  that  place 
were  first  paraded  round  the  town  in  barbarous  triumph,  and  af- 
terwards, contrary  to  all  the  laws  of  war,  of  nations,  and  of  na- 
ture, were  inhumanly  put  to  death;  if,  when  the  unoffending  town 
of  Sion  capitulated  to  the  French,  the  troops  were  let  loose  to 
revel  in  every  species  of  licentiousness  and  cruelty; — if  the 
women,  after  having  been  brutally  violated,  were  thrown  alive 
into  the  flames;  if,  more  recently,  when  Stantz  was  carried,  after 
a  short  but  vigorous  and  honourable  resistance,  such  as  would 
have  conciliated  the  esteem  of  any  but  a  French  conqueror,  the 
whole  town  was  burnt  to  the  ground,  and  the  ashes  quenched 
with  the  blood  of  the  inhabitants: — the  bare  recital  of  these  hor- 
rors and  atrocities  awakens  in  British  bosoms,  I  trust  it  does 
awaken,  I  trust  it  will  long  keep  alive,  an  abhorrence  of  the  na- 
tion and  name  of  that  people  by  whom  such  execrable  cruelties 
have  been  practised,  and  such  terrible  calamities  inflicted:  but  on 
the  Swiss  (we  are  to  understand),  these  cruelties  and  calamities 
have  left  no  lasting  impression:  the  inhabitants  of  Soleure,  who 
followed,  with  tears  of  anguish  and  indignation,  their  venerated 
magistrates  to  a  death  of  terror  and  ignominy;  the  husbands  and 
fathers  and  sons  of  those  wrretched  victims  who  expired  in  tor- 
ture and  in  shame,  beneath  the  brutality  of  a  savage  soldiery  at 
Sion;  the  wretched  survivors  of  those  who  perished  in  the  ruins 
of  their  country  at  Stantz:  they  all  felt  but  a  transient  pang: 
their  tears  by  this  time  are  dried;  their  rage  is  hushed;  their  re- 
sentment silenced:  there  is  nothing  in  their  feelings  which  can 
be  stimulated  into  honourable  and  effectual  action;  there  is  no 
motive  for  their  exertions,  upon  which  we  can  safely  and  perma- 
nently rely!  Sir,  I  should  be  ashamed  to  waste  your  time  by  ar- 
guing such  a  question. 

If,  however,  with  such  allies  as  there  is  a  probability  of  obtain- 
ing, with  such  a  chance  for  the  fidelity  and  stability  of  those  alli- 
ances, as  the  circumstances  which  I  have  mentioned  appear  to 
furnish,  we  are  yet  to  be  told  that  there  is  no  safety  in  such  a 
system ;  ii  may  be  worth  while  to  consider  very  shortly,  whether 
a  greater  degree  of  security  would  belong  to  a  separate  treaty  of 
peace  with  France  concluded  at  the  present  moment,  if  at  the 
presenl  moment  it  were  possible  to  conclude  it.  I  certainly  have 
no  thoughts  of  troubling  you  at  length  upon  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, because  then'  is  not  one  word  in  the  honourable  gentleman's 
speech  which  implies  the  belief'(i1  would  be  strange  indeed  if  be 


32  ON   MR.   TIERNEY'S  MOTION 

could  believe)  that  any  peace,  on  any  terms,  is  at  present  within 
our  power. 

But  if  the  faith  of  other  powers  be  doubtful,  the  perfidy  of 
France  is  certain:  need  I  enumerate  the  several  instances  of  direct 
and  profligate  breach  of  faith  which  have  distinguished,  or  rather 
which  have  marked  in  almost  equal  degree,  every  diplomatic  act 
of  the  French  Republic  ?  Need  I  recall  to  your  memory  how  the 
preliminaries  of  Leoben  (first  granted  to  the  Emperor  to  extricate 
Buonaparte  from  the  difficulties  of  the  situation  into  which  his 
rashness  had  precipitated  him)  were  withdrawn  and  cancelled  by 
the  French  government,  under  the  pretence  that  to  claim  the  ex- 
ecution of  them  was  to  impose  on  the  generosity  of  the  Repub- 
lic? How  in  their  room  was  substituted  the  treaty  of  Campo 
Formio  ?  And  how  the  treaty  of  Campo  Formio,  after  being  vio- 
lated in  innumerable  instances,  has  been  almost  distinctly  abro- 
gated and  renounced  in  the  confederacies  at  Radstadt?  Need  I 
desire  you  to  recollect  the  fraud  and  violence  by  which  the 
French  took  possession  of  Venice,  and  the  shameless  injustice 
with  which  they  the  next  day  transferred  that  possession  to  the 
Emperor?  Need  I  return  again  to  Switzerland  to  remind  you, 
that  the  invasion  of  that  devoted  country  was  the  work  not  of 
arms  so  much,  as  of  treaty;  that  the  way  for  pillage  and  devasta- 
tion was  opened  by  the  pretext  of  superintending  and  guarantee- 
ing a' 'few  parliamentary  reforms?  Can  we  remember  these 
things,  and  yet  pretend  to  doubt  if  we  shall  have  as  good  security 
for  the  fidelity  of  our  allies  in  the  prosecution  of  the  contest,  as 
we  could  build  on  the  faith  of  France  for  its  safe  and  honourable 
termination  ? 

There  is  yet  another  point  of  view,  in  which  this  argument  may 
be  considered.  Let  us  compare  the  expectations  which  we  may 
be  allowed  to  form  of  our  allies,  with  the  character  and  situation 
of  the  several  allies  of  France.  If  we,  in  renewing  the  great 
confederacy  of  the  powers  of  the  continent,  are  weaving  a  rope 
of  sand; — let  us  examine  whether  the  connexions  of  France  are 
bound  to  her  by  a  chain  which  nothing  can  loosen.  If  the  ground 
upon  which  we  stand  is  false  and  hollow,  let  us  see  whether  the 
alliances  of  France  rest  upon  a  more  stable  and  solid  foundation. 
If  the  only  sure  foundation  of  permanent  alliance  between  nations 
must  be  laid  in  community  of  interest  and  of  sentiment,  in  the  sense 
of  mutual  benefits,  or  in  the  interchange  of  protection  on  the  one 
side,  and  attachment  on  the  other: — let  us  look  round,  Sir,  among 
the  states  which  are  immediately  connected  with  France:  let  us 
examine  the  benefits  which  they  derive  from  her  friendship,  and 
it  will  not  be  difficult  to  estimate  the  affection  which  they  must 
owe  to  her  in  return.  Is  it  in  the  Cisalpine,  the  Roman,  the 
Ligurian  republics,  those  deformed  and  ricketty  children,  upon 


RESPECTING   PEACE    WITH    FRANCE.  33 

whom  the  mother  republic  has  lavished  so  much  of  her  care, — is 
it  in  these,  however  they  may  bear  the  precious  resemblance  of 
their  parent,  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  fondness  of  filial  duty  and 
attachment?  Are  we  to  look  for  it  in  the  Cisalpine  Republic, 
whom,  in  preference  to  the  others,  she  appears  to  have  selected 
as  a  living  subject  for  her  experiments  in  political  anatomy; 
whom  she  has  delivered  up  tied  and  bound  to  a  series  of  butch- 
ering, bungling  philosophical  professors,  to  distort,  and  mangle, 
and  lop,  and  stretch  its  limbs  into  all  sorts  of  fantastical  shapes, 
and  to  hunt  through  its  palpitating  frame  the  vital  principle  of  re- 
publicanism? Is  the  infant  Roman  republic  so  gratified  by  the 
present  which  France  has  made  to  it  of  five  consuls  instead  of 
two,  as  to  forget  all  the  miseries,  the  robbery,  the  confiscation, 
and  the  blood,  by  which  this  invaluable  acquisition  has  been  pur- 
chased ?  Does  the  protection  which  she  has  afforded  to  the  Ligu- 
rian  Republic,  entitle  her  to  their  affectionate  acknowledgment 
and  pious  devotion  ?  Observe,  I  beg  of  you,  in  what  a  situation 
those  unfortunate  Ligurians  have  been  placed  by  her.  They  are 
forced  into  acts  of  outrage  and  hostility  against  England.  We 
declare  war  against  them; — and  such  is  their  confidence  in  the 
protection  of  France,  that  no  sooner  has  that  war  been  declared, 
than  they  come  crawling  upon  their  knees  to  implore  our  pity 
and  forbearance!  Unnatural  Ligurians!  if  they  are  not  thankful 
for  such  an  instance  of  the  parental  solicitude  of  France  for  their 
welfare ! 

Look  next  at  that  unfortunate  Prince,  whose  dominions  border 
upon  these  wretched  republics:  and  ask,  by  what  ties  of  gratitude 
is  the  King  of  Sardinia  bound  to  his  ally!  The  King  of  Sardinia, 
it  is  true,  has  not  yet  been  precipitated  from  his  throne;  but  he 
sits  there  with  the  sword  of  a  French  garrison  suspended  above 
his  head.  He  retains,  indeed,  the  style  and  title  of  King:  but 
there  is  a  French  General  to  be  viceroy  over  him.  A  prisoner  in 
his  own  capital,  surrounded  by  the  spies  and  agents,  and  hemmed 
in  by  the  arms  of  the  Direotory,  compelled  to  dismiss  from  his 
councils  and  his  presence  all  those  of  his  servants  who  were  most 
attached  to  his  person,  and  most  zealous  for  his  interests;  compel- 
led to  preach  daily  to  his  people,  the  mortifying  and  degrading 
lesson  of  that  patience  and  humility,  of  which  he  is  himself  a  me- 
lancholy example,  to  excuse  and  extenuate  the  insults  offered  by 
his  allies  to  his  subjects;  to  repress,  even  by  force,  the  resentment 
of  his  subjects  against  his  allies: — is  this  a  situation  in  which  the 
King  of  Sardinia  can  be  supposed  to  derive  comfort  from  the  al- 
liance of  France,  and  repay  it.  with  thankfulness?  Would  he  not, 
even  if  this  were  to  be  the  extent  of  his  suffering  and  degrada- 
tion; would  he  not,  if  he  inherits  the  spirit  of  his  great  ancestors, 
if  their  blood  flows  in  his  veins;  would  he  not  seize,  even  at  the 
6 


34  ON   MR.    TIERNE'YS    MOTION 

risk  of  his  crown  and  of  his  life,  any  opportunity  that  might  be 
afforded  him,  to  emancipate  himself  from  a  connexion  so  burthen- 
some,  to  shake  off  the  weight  of  a  friendship  so  intolerable? 

But  he  well  knows  that  he  has  not  yet  suffered  all  that  is  pre- 
pared for  him.  He  knows  full  well  that  he  is  allowed  to  occupy 
even  this  shadowy  and  tottering  throne,  to  grasp  the  "  unreal 
mockery"  of  a  sceptre,  only  so  long  as  he  shall  be  necessary  as 
purveyor  for  the  French  army  in  Italy;  or  until  it  shall  please  the 
capricious  cruelty  of  his  tyrants  to  end  his  disgrace  by  annihila- 
tion. Perhaps  the  supplies  for  a  campaign  may  be  more  readily 
procured  by  the  operations  of  a  regular  government,  than  they 
could  be  by  any  new  upstart  revolutionary  power,  in  a  country 
agitated  by  the  ferment  of  political  change.  Perhaps  the  lust  of 
destroying  may  overbear  this  prudential  consideration.  But,  at 
all  events,  the  war  in  Italy  once  over,  whether  it  be  in  the  tide 
of  victory,  or  in  the  ebb  and  reflux  of  defeat,  that  the  French  ar- 
mies return  through  Piedmont,  their  passage  will  alike  be  fatal  to 
this  unhappy  monarch  and  to  his  people;  they  will  equally  sweep 
away  with  them,  in  a  torrent,  whatever  remains  of  royalty  and 
of  established  government;  and  will  leave  behind  them  the  same 
wreck,  the  same  shapeless  ruins,  with  which  the  fair  face  of  the 
neighbouring  countries  is  already  encumbered  and  deformed. 

But,  perhaps,  with  more  powerful  and  more  respected  allies, 
with  those  whose  names  were  brought  forward  with  such  a  dis- 
play and  ostentation  in  the  negotiation  at  Lisle,  as  inseparably 
connected  with  the  honour  and  interests  of  the  French  Republic; 
perhaps  with  Holland  and  with  Spain  a  greater  degree  of  forbear- 
ance has  been  observed;  a  more  friendly  and  liberal  intercourse 
has  been  established;  a  more  honourable  and  independent  system 
of  communication  has  been  maintained. 

The  friendship  of  Holland !  The  independence  of  Spain !  Is 
there  a  man  so  besotted  as  to  suppose,  that  there  is  one  hour  of 
peace  with  France  preserved  by  either  of  these  unhappy  coun- 
tries; that  there  is  one  syllable  of  friendship  uttered  by  them  to- 
wards France,  but  what  is  extorted  by  the  immediate  pressure,  or 
by  the  dread  and  terror  of  French  arms? — 

"  mouth-honour,  breath, 

Which  the  poor  heart  would  fain  refuse,  but  dare  not!" 

Have  the  regenerated  republic  of  Holland,  or  the  degraded 

monarchy  of  Spain,  such  reason  to  rejoice  in  the  protection  of  the 

French  Republic,  that  they  would  voluntarily  throw  themselves 

between  her  and  any  blow  which  might  menace  her  existence? 

Holland  once  had  wealth,  had  industry,  had  commerce.     Where 

are  they  now?    Gone;  swallowed  up  in  the  all-devouring  gulf  of 

French   bankruptcy.      Holland    once    had    flourishing   colonies; 

them,  perhaps,  France  has  preserved  for  her.     The  flag  of  the 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  PRANCE.        35 

enemies  of  France  is  flying  at  Ceylon,  and  at  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope.  Holland  had  once  a  navy,  a  navy  of  strength  and  gallan- 
try and  reputation,  a  navy  which  has  often  contended  even  with 
our  own,  and  contended  with  no  mean  exertion,  for  the  mastery 
of  the  sea?  Where  is  it  now  ?  Where  is  the  skill  which  directed, 
the  promptness,  courage,  and  vigour,  which  manned  it?  All  ut- 
terly destroyed  and  gone.  The  baneful  touch  of  French  frater- 
nity has  blasted  the  reputation,  has  unmanned  the  strength,  has 
bowed  the  spirit,  of  the  people,  in  the  same  proportion  as  it  has 
exhausted  the  resources  of  the  country.  The  spirit  of  the  people 
is  bowed,  it  is  true;  but  let  us  trust  that  it  is  not  broken;  let  us 
hope  that,  if  an  opening  should  be  presented,  it  may  yet  spring 
up  with  sudden  and  irresistible  violence,  to  the  astonishment  and 
overthrow  of  its  oppressors. 

Spain,  however,  it  may  be  said,  is  still  powerful,  and  still  a 
monarchy;  to  Spain,  therefore,  the  friendship  of  France  must 
have  been  offered  on  more  equal  and  durable  terms.  An  alliance 
with  a  Bourbon,  cemented  with  Bourbon  blood,  cannot  but  be 
lasting.  I  look  at  Spain,  Sir,  and  it  must  be  owned  I  find  her 
still  a  monarchy:  she  has  not  yet  received  the  blessings  of  a  Di- 
rectory and  two  councils.  But,  I  confess,  I  perceive  no  one  of 
those  features  by  which  the  monarchy  of  Spain  has  heretofore 
been  distinguished.  I  see  nothing  of  power;  I  can  discover  noth- 
ing of  policy.  I  know,  that  to  be  engaged  in  an  impolitic  war, 
is  not  of  itself  an  unheard  of,  or  an  unaccountable  novelty.  Spain 
has,  no  doubt,  been  often  engaged,  as  well  as  other  powers,  in 
wars  of  pride,  in  wars  of  ambition,  in  wars  of  doubtful  or  mis- 
taken interest.  In  an  absolute  monarchy,  too,  like  Spain,  it  must 
often  have  happened,  that,  in  matters  of  war,  or  alliance,  as  well 
as  of  internal  regulation  and  domestic  policy,  the  will  of  the 
prince,  guided  either  by  shallow  favouritism,  or  by  crooked  in- 
trigue, has  at  times  adopted  measures  prejudicial  to  the  welfare  of 
his  subjects.  A  powerful  and  haughty  nobility,  a  numerous  and 
highly  privileged  clergy,  may,  at  other  times,  have  given  an  im- 
pulse to  the  direction  of  affairs,  agreeable  only  to  their  own  preju- 
dices and  partial  interests.  At  other  times,  again,  the  tempest  of 
popular  fury  has  overborne,  both  the  will  of  the  prince  and  the 
power  of  the  aristocracy,  and  driven  the  machine  of  government 
wholly  out  of  its  natural  course  and  direction.  But  a  situation 
of  things,  in  which  the  crown  is  enthralled,  the  aristocracy  hum- 
bled, and  the  nation  in  general  degraded  and  impoverished,  not 
by  the  effects  of  internal  struggle,  or  the  perverse  preponderance 
of  any  one  party  or  member  of  the  state,  but  by  the  palpable,  undis- 
guised, and  oppressive  agency  of  a  foreign  power:  this  is,  indeed, 
an  unusual  situation  for  an  independent  kingdom.  Such  is,  how- 
ever,  the  situation  of  Spain.     The   power  of  the  monarch,  the 


36  ON  MR.   TIERNEY'S   MOTION 

prejudices  and  privileges  of  the  higher  orders,  the  comfort,  hap- 
piness, and  almost  subsistence  of  the  mass  of  people,  are  all  em- 
barked together  in  a  war,  of  which  the  success  or  failure  must  be 
equally  fatal  to  them  all:  a  war  which  has  committed  that  coun- 
try with  an  enemy  whom  it  dares  not  face,  and  has  linked  it  to 
the  fortunes,  and  subjected  it  to  the  will  of  an  ally,  whose  friend- 
ship is  more  formidable  than  hostility:  a  war  which  has  brought 
into  contempt  the  authority  of  the  government,  and  the  character 
of  the  nation;  which  has  exhausted  their  commercial  and  annihi- 
lated their  military  marine:  which,  in  precluding  their  intercourse 
with  their  colonies,  has  cut  off  the  springs  of  wealth  that  fed 
the  state,  and  the  streams  of  commerce  that  enriched  the  country; 
a  war,  which  has  done  more  in  two  short  years,  under  the  auspices 
of  France,  to  carry  into  execution  that  vote  of  the  British  parlia- 
ment in  1707,  to  wrest  the  monarchy  of  Spain  and  the  Spanish 
West  Indies  from  the  possession  of  the  house  of  Bourbon,  than 
all  the  exertions  of  this  country  could  ever  have  effected,  than  all 
its  enmity  could  ever  have  desired. 

So  fatal  has  been  to  Spain  already  the  friendship  of  the  French 
Republic;  and  such  are  the  obligations  by  which  she  is  bound  to 
it  in  perpetual  allegiance  and  fidelity!  But  this  is  not  yet  all:  the 
King  of  Spain  has  yet  to  drink  the  bitter  dregs  of  misery  and 
degradation. 

Sir,  when  Louis  XlVth  broke  up  the  conferences  of  Gertruy- 
denberg,  rather  than  submit  to  the  proposal  of  turning  his  arms 
against  his  grandson;  whatever  our  dislike  of  his  former  inso- 
lence, or  our  detestation  of  his  ambition  may  be,  we  cannot  refuse 
our  approbation  to  this  just  display  of  spirit  and  of  feeling.  Fal- 
len as  he  then  was  from  the  splendour  of  his  high  fortunes,  and, 
in  some  measure,  at  the  mercy  of  his  enemies;  we  cannot  but  ap- 
plaud the  honourable  pride  with  which ,  while  conceding  territory 
and  dominion  as  the  price  of  peace,  he  yet  rejected  peace  itself, 
when  it  was  to  be  purchased  with  ignominy.  I  think,  too,  we 
cannot  but  condemn  the  cruel  and  ungenerous  policy  which  dic- 
tated the  demand  of  such  a  sacrifice.  But  this,  we  are  to  recol- 
lect, was  the  demand  of  a  triumphant  enemy.  Mark  now  the  ex- 
tortion of  a  protecting  friend!  The  King  of  Spain,  exhausted  in 
his  resources,  and  disgraced  in  his  arms,  by  a  war  carried  on  at 
the  instigation,  and  for  the  exclusive  interests  of  the  French  Di- 
rectory, is,  in  return  for  these  exertions,  commanded  by  that  Di- 
rectory to  employ  what  remains  of  the  strength  and  power  of  his 
kingdom,  for  the  conquest  of  Portugal,  for  the  subversion  of  the 
throne  to  which  his  daughter  is  heir.  Have  we  the  feelings  of 
men,  and  do  we  doubt  what  sentiments  of  indignation  and  disgust 
this  outrageous  command  must  have  excited  in  the  bosom  of  a 
father  and  a  king? 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  FRANCE.        37 

Now,  Sir,  there  is  a  story,  and  it  was  a  good  one  until  the 
French  got  hold  of  it — the  story  of  William  Tell.  I  think  I 
need  hardly  make  the  application.  Would  it  appear  to  us  a  sur- 
prising or  an  unnatural  thing,  if  the  King  of  Spain,  urged,  and 
finally  compelled  to  point  his  last  weapon  at  the  crown  of  his 
daughter,  should  turn  round,  in  the  fury  of  despair,  and  aim  it 
at  the  bosom  of  the  tyrant  who  dictated  the  blow  ? 

I  have  not  troubled  the  House  with  this  enumeration,  as  con- 
ceiving it  to  hold  out  in  itself  inducements  and  temptations  for 
the  continuance  of  the  war;  supposing  that  we  had  any  choice  as 
to  continuing  or  concluding  it.  But  forced  as  we  are  to  persevere 
in  the  contest,  and  expedient  as  it  appears,  that  we  should  furnish 
ourselves  with  whatever  means  we  can  procure  for  conducting  it 
to  a  termination  consistent  with  our  safety  and  our  honour,  and 
convinced,  as  I  think  every  man  must  be,  that  the  co-operation  of 
other  powers  affords,  at  least,  one  great  instrument  for  such  an  ex- 
ertion; it  does,  I  think,  seem  material,  when  against  the  system 
of  alliances  no  argument  is  so  loudly  urged  as  the  probability  of 
those  alliances  proving  unfaithful  and  unsound.  It  does,  I  think, 
seem  material,  to  ascertain,  whether  this  hazard  is  peculiar  to  our 
situation  alone;  or  whether,  if,  on  the  one  hand,  we  have  but  fee- 
ble assistance,  we  are  likely,  on  the  other  hand,  to  have  any  thing 
but  feebleness  to  oppose.  Committed  with  our  enemy  single 
handed,  France  to  England,  what  should  we  fear?  But  if  the  ac- 
cession of  allies  is  to  us  an  accession  of  weakness,  is  it  not  some- 
thing to  be  assured  that  to  France  it  is  not  an  accession  of  perma- 
nent and  formidable  strength? — that  if  France  has  the  means  of 
seducing  our  allies,  we  have  the  satisfaction  of  feeling  that  our 
interests  cannot  be  indifferent  to  the  allies  of  France? — that  men 
called  on  her  side,  and  fighting  under  her  banners,  cannot  fail  in 
their  secret  hearts  to  pray  that  the  victory  may  be  on  our  side  ? 

Is  not  this  the  case  ?  Do  we  not  know  it  to  be  so  ?  Who  is 
there  that  has  not  heard,  and  heard  with  heartfelt  delight,  that  the 
glorious  victory  of  the  first  of  August  communicated  a  sensation 
of  triumph  and  of  joy,  not  only  to  the  heart  of  England ;  not 
only  to  the  bosoms  of  those  nations  whose  deliverance  it  more 
immediately  effected;  not  only  to  nations  neutral  in  name,  but 
who  feel,  in  spite  of  their  neutrality,  that  their  independent  ex- 
istence is  involved  in  the  issue  of  the  contest;  but  even  to  nations 
nominally  hostile  to  Great  Britain,  to  governments,  the  slaves  of 
the  power,  or  creatures  of  the  caprice  of  France?  The  presence 
of  a  French  ambassador  could  scarce  repress  the  burst  of  exulta- 
tion  in  courts  that  trembled  at  his  frown.  The  whispered  satis- 
faction went  round  in  circles,  where  an  open  manifestation  of  joy 
would  have  been  treason;  and  even  the  vassal  republics  leaped  in 
their  chains. 

E 


38  ON  MR.   TIERNEY's  MOTION 

Oh!  but,  however  willing  the  allies  of  France  might  be  to 
seize  a  favourable  opportunity  for  shaking  off  the  yoke  of  her 
protection,  were  we  even  able  to  rally  them  on  our  side  in  the 
outset  of  the  contest,  their  assistance  would  be  nothing  worth. 
Exhausted  and  dispirited  as  they  are,  they  have  neither  the  heart 
nor  strength  to  fight  the  battle  of  independence!  True,  Sir,  they 
have  been  cruelly  reduced  and  broken  down.  It  is  true,  that 
many  of  them  have  been  moulded  and  distorted  into  shapes  so 
strange  and  unnatural,  that  they  scarce  have  limbs  to  use,  or  the 
power  of  self-motion  remaining;  but  yet,  even  so,  they  are  not 
wholly  without  vigour  and  vitality, — 

"  Spoliatis  arma  supersunt. 
The  arms  which  they  have  remaining,  are  the  arms  most  terrible 
to  tyrants:  their  wrongs,  their  desperation,  their  desire  of  re- 
venge. Let  France  appeal  to  the  bad  passions  of  our  allies;  let 
her  cajole  their  fears,  or  inflame  their  appetite  for  aggrandizement. 
The  foundations  of  our  tacit  but  intimate  alliance  with  the  allies 
of  France,  are  already  laid,  in  their  just  resentment,  in  their 
proud  indignation,  in  every  virtuous  and  every  honourable  feel- 
ing. When  did  such  a  contest  terminate  in  giving  ultimate  and 
permanent  preponderance  to  evil  ?  If  I  do  not  venture  to  antici- 
pate a  fortunate  result  amounting  to  the  full  completion  of  our 
sanguine  and  justifiable  expectations,  I  may  surely  ask,  what  has 
France  done  to  deserve  that  the  ordinary  course  of  human  events 
should  be  reversed  in  her  favour? 

But  then,  Sir,  another  and  a  graver  doubt  is  stated.  It  is 
doubted  whether,  with  half  the  world  in  arms  on  our  side,  the  ob- 
jects which  we  might  hope  to  obtain,  would  be,  in  any  just  and 
politic  sense,  British  objects.  I,  Sir,  have  not  sat  long  enough  in 
this  House  to  remember  the  time,  but  a  time  I  am  told  there  was, 
when  if  I  had  ventured  to  hesitate  a  doubt  whether  or  not  the 
situation  of  the  powers  of  the  continent,  relatively  to  us  or  to 
each  other,  and  the  general  balance  of  Europe  (as  it  is  called) 
were  objects  of  British  concern,  I  should  have  been  scouted  and 
laughed  at  as  a  driveller  and  an  idiot,  or  reviled  as  a  presumptu- 
ous arraigner  of  the  wisdom  and  policy  of  our  ancestors.  I  un- 
derstand that  all  this  is  now  changed.  I  understand  that  the 
great  authorities,  from  whom  I  should  more  particularly  have  ex- 
pected such  a  censure,  if  I  had  ventured  such  an  opinion,  have 
entirely  thrown  away  and  abandoned  their  favourite  system;  and 
are  now  more  strenuous  in  decrying  those  who  maintain  it,  than 
they  were  before  in  propagating  it  thems.elves.  I  cannot  account 
for  these  eccentricities;  but  I  do  not  presume  to  blame  them. 
They  at  least  teach  me  to  proceed  with  caution;  and  rather  to 
inquire  with  great  humility  from  the  honourable  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  of  the  House,  whether  or  no  such  and  such  things 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  FRANCE.  39 

are  objects  of  interest  to  our  country,  than  to  state  any  affirma- 
tive opinion  of  my  own  upon  the  subject. 

The  honourable  gentleman  mentioned  the  East  Indies,  and 
alluded  to  the  expedition  to  Egypt  as  having  threatened  our  pos- 
sessions in  that  quarter.  Is  then  the  deliverance  of  Egypt  from  a 
French  army  a  British  object?  Does  the  honourable  gentleman, 
or  does  any  man,  believe,  that  if  peace  had  been  concluded  at 
Lisle,  this  expedition  would  at  all  the  less  have  been  undertaken  ? 
Does  he  believe  that,  in  that  case  to  defeat  the  expedition  would 
have  been  equally  a  British  object?  And  does  he  think  that,  af- 
ter the  peace  made  at  Lisle,  we  should  have  been  equally  in  a 
condition  to  defeat  it?  Would  not  the  co-operation  of  the  Turk 
have  been  then  desirable,  to  enable  us  to  effect  that  purpose  ?  Is 
it  less  desirable  now  ?  If,  by  his  co-operation,  we  are  enabled  to 
confound  and  expel  that  horde  of  robbers,  and  buccaneers,  who 
have  taken  possession  of  his  Egyptian  territory;  or  (what  I  should 
like  much  better),  to  shut  them  up  on  all  sides,  and  leave  them 
there  to  be  quietly  and  gradually  exterminated — is  this  no  advan- 
tage to  Great  Britain  ?  Was  the  purpose  of  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman's motion  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  this  event?  If,  by 
the  joint  assistance  of  Russia  and  the  Porte,  we  could  sweep  the 
Levant  and  the  Mediterranean  of  the  scattered  remnants  of  this 
piratical  armament;  if  the  coasts  of  Italy  were  thus  rendered  un- 
assailable by  the  enemy,  and  the  southern  coasts  of  France  thus 
laid  open  to  our  attack,  and  the  ports  and  commerce  of  the  Medi- 
terranean and  Levant  secured  to  us;  are  Me.se  British  objects? 
Are  the  Netherlands  a  British  object?  I  have  heard  that  the  de- 
pendence of  the  Netherlands  on  France,  has  in  former  times  been 
considered  as  so  prejudicial  to  this  country,  that  there  was  no 
case  in  which  that  object  alone  would  not  have  been  a  sufficient 
cause  for  prolonging  or  for  even  engaging  in  a  war.  I  do  not  as- 
sert that  this  is  so.  But  if  there  be  any  truth  in  this  opinion,  and 
if,  by  a  vigorous  co-operation  on  the  part  of  Austria  or  Prussia, 
or  both,  we  might  have  a  chance  of  wresting  this  possession  from 
France, — will  the  honourable  gentleman,  will  any  other  man  in 
the  House,  be  the  person  to  get  up  and  say,  "This  you  might  ef- 
fect, but  I  will  prevent  you?"  If  by  the  help  of  Prussia,  we 
might  hope  to  rescue  Holland  from  her  present  state  of  servitude 
and  degradation,  to  raise  her  head  once  more  among  the  indepen- 
dent powers  of  Europe,  a  rich,  a  flourishing  and  a  happy  country, 
connected  with  us  by  old  habits,  common  interest,  and  the  recip- 
rocation of  commercial. advantages;  will  any  man  say  that  this 
would  not  be  a  British  object?  will  any  man  lay  in  his  claim 
now,  would  any  man  be  proud  hereafter  to  have  entitled  himself, 
to  the  credit  of  having  tin-own  an  insuperable  impediment  in  the 
way  of  the  rescue  and  restoration  of  Holland  ? 


40  ON  MR.   TIERNEY'S  MOTION 

And  yet,  Sir,  Holland  has  heretofore  been  thought  to  be  so  in- 
timately interesting  to  this  country,  especially  by  gentlemen  who 
used  to  sit  on  that  side  of  the  House,  and  to  whose  former  opinions 
on  foreign  politics  I  have  been  accustomed  to  attach  no  small  de- 
gree of  respect  and  consideration,  that,  if  I  am  rightly  informed, 
(for  it  is  much  beyond  my  memory  in  parliament)  the  only  act 
of  my  right  honourable  friend's  administration  which  has  had  the 
good  fortune  to  receive  the  approbation  and  applause  of  those  gen- 
tlemen, and  upon  which  they  lavished  as  large  and  unqualified 
praise  as  his  warmest  supporters  could  have  afforded  him,  was  a 
spirited  and  judicious  exertion  by  which,  in  the  year  1787,  the 
designs  of  France  in  Holland  were  defeated  (at  the  risk  of  a  war), 
and  the  ascendancy  of  this  country  secured. 

I  cannot  believe  that  if  we  were  now  debating,  if  it  possibly 
could  be  fit  matter  for  this  House  to  debate,  "  whether  or  no, 
having  an  opportunity  to  conclude  a  peace  in  all  other  respects 
desirable,  we  should  continue  the  war  for  the  single  purpose  of 
the  deliverance  of  Holland  alone?"  I  cannot  believe  that  those 
persons  to  whom  I  have  referred,  holding  the  principles  which 
they  have  heretofore  professed,  could  hesitate  to  give  their  vote 
in  the  affirmative.  If  I  am  wrong  in  this  supposition,  I  desire 
only  to  be  informed,  where,  and  when,  and  how,  the  change  in 
the  policy  of  the  country  took  place  ?  Is  the  ambition  of  France 
less  formidable  now  ?  Is  her  desire  of  aggrandizement  less  noto- 
rious ?  Is  her  power  less  terrible  ?  Is  her  hostility  to  this  coun- 
try less  acrimonious?  than  when,  in  the  year  1786,  the  commer- 
cial treaty  with  France  was  arrianged,  by  the  same  persons  whose 
maxims  of  foreign  policy  I  have  already  quoted,  not  as  unfavour- 
able to  Great  Britain,  but  as  likely  to  take  off  the  edge  of  our  na- 
tional antipathy  against  France?  When  my  right  honourable 
friend  was  attacked  and  reviled  for  having,  in  a  paltry  search  af- 
ter mercantile  profit,  wholly  abandoned  the  doctrines  of  our  an- 
cestors, and  improvidently  thrown  away  the  safety  of  posterity, 
by  admitting  the  possibility  of  any  relations  between  this  country 
and  France,  except  those  of  jealous  rivalry  or  open  contest;  for 
having  attempted  to  lull  England  into  the  belief  that  the  ambition 
of  France,  because  not  active  at  the  moment,  was  extinguished; 
that  her  power,  because  not  exerted,  had  ceased  to  be  formidable: 
that  her  professions  of  friendship  could  mean  any  thing,  but  to 
gain  time  and  strength;  that  her  apparent  pacific  disposition  could 
be  any  thing  but  a  drawing  of  breath  against  the  renewal  of  hos- 
tilities? 

If  all  this  is  changed,  allow  me  to  inquire  of  those  who  can  in- 
struct me,  by  what  process  the  change  has  been  wrought?  and  at 
what  period  ?  What  is  its  origin  and  date  ?  Did  it  come  in  with 
the  new  style  ?    Was  it  on  primidi,  duodi  or  decadi,  in  what 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  FRANCE.        41 

month,  and  in  what  year,  of  the  new  republican  calendar?  Did 
the  old  system  expire  in  September,  and  the  new  one  begin  with 
Fructidor?  1  really  ask  for  information.  I  do  not  mean  to  ques- 
tion the  propriety  of  the  alteration,  but  to  get  at  the  reason  of  it. 
I  am  not  too  old  to  learn.  But  I  cannot  take  it  upon  authority 
alone:  and  that,  too,  an  authority  which  has  always  hitherto  been 
on  the  other  side.  I  must  continue  to  repeat  my  old  catechism, 
until  I  am  sufficiently  illuminated  to  understand  the  articles  of  the 
new. 

Till  then,  I  must  continue  to  ask,  with  some  degree  of  earnest- 
ness, if  any  one  of  the  objects  which  I  have  enumerated,  may 
possibly  be  obtained  by  an  alliance  with  the  powers  of  the  conti- 
nent, much  more  if  we  could  be  sanguine  enough  to  suppose  that 
such  an  opening  might  arise  as  would  lead  to  the  attainment  of 
them  all,  as  would  lead  to  the  reduction  of  France  within  her  an- 
cient limits,  and  to  the  replacing  Europe  nearly  in  the  situation  in 
which  it  stood  before  the  commencement  of  the  war;  whether  or 
no  it  is  possible  for  a  member  of  the  British  parliament  to  enter- 
tain so  extraordinary  and  perverse  an  ambition  as  to  be  desirous 
of  having  it  to  say  hereafter,  "  All  this  might,  perhaps,  have  been 
accomplished,  but,  by  a  single  motion,  I  prevented  it  all  ?" 

Understand  me,  Sir,  however,  that  I  do  not  mean  to  undertake 
that  if  the  honourable  gentleman's  motion  should  not  pass,  all 
this  will,  therefore,  be  accomplished.  We  are  debating  now,  not 
whether  or  no  such  and  such  exertions  will  lead  to  such  and  such 
results,  but  whether  or  no  we  shall  gratuitously  throw  away  the 
only  chance  which  we  have  for  the  exertions  being  made.  The 
honourable  gentleman  does  not  affirm  that  Europe  cannot  be  saved; 
he  only  desires  that  we  may  have  no  share,  that  we  may  give  no 
encouragement  for  saving  it.  In  answer  to  such  a  proposition,  it 
is  not  necessary  for  me  to  argue  (what  is  not  denied)  that  the  suc- 
cess of  the  experiment  is  probable:  it  is  only  necessary  for  me  to 
;isk,  whether  its  success  is  so  improbable,  and  its  nature  so  unin- 
teresting, that  you  will  determine  beforehand  that  it  ought  not  to 
be  tried  ? 

The  honourable  gentleman,  however,  for  his  part  declares,  that 
he  "  washes  his  hands  of  the  whole  business."  The  honourable 
gentleman  has  a  habit,  Sir,  (which  I  do  not  mention  to  disapprove 
it)  of  appealing  to  the  testimony  of  his  conscience,  and  of  hold- 
ing out  to  his  opponents  Ihe  miseries  which  must  accrue  from 
"  pillows  st uft  with  thorns."  Has  the  honourable  gentleman  ever 
considered  the  present  situation  of  Switzerland  in  this  point  of 
view?  And  is  he  so  eager  to  "  wash  his  hands"  of  any  share  in 
her  possible  emancipation?  Is  it  necessary  as  a  balm  to  his  con- 
science? Will  it  strew  his  pillow  with  roses,  to  be  able  to  say  to 
himself,  "  If  the  people  of  Switzerland  succeed  in  breaking  the 
7  E* 


42  ON  MR.   TIERNEY'S   MOTION 

galling  fetters  of  an  intolerable  and  bloody  tyranny,  thank  God, 
I  have  given  no  aid  to  their  efforts!  I  can  lay  my  hand  upon  my 
heart  and  declare,  that  for  aught  I  would  have  done  for  them,  or 
would  have  encouraged  them  to  do  for  themselves,  the  Swiss 
should  have  continued  to  groan  in  bitterness  of  sorrow,  in  abase- 
ment and  despair.  Fight  your  own  battles,  miserable  Swiss! — 
England  has  no  sympathy  with  your  sufferings! — Bind  tighter 
their  fetters,  sanguinary  Directory! — You  have  nothing  to  dread 
from  English  interference! 

"  Bleed,  bleed,  poor  country ! 

Great  tyranny,  lay  thou  thy  basis  sure, 
For  goodness  dares  not  check  thee !" 


Such,  Sir,  is  the  language  of  the  honourable  gentleman's  mo- 
tion. But  such,  I  trust,  is  not  the  sense  of  those  who  have  heard 
it.  I,  too,  will  appeal  to  the  conscientious  feelings  of  individuals. 
I  might  appeal  to  their  recorded  professions  in  the  almost  unani- 
mous vote  upon  the  address  to  His  Majesty,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  session;  but,  I  confess,  when  I  can  reacb  the  heart  and  spirit, 
I  prefer  a  direct  appeal  to  them,  to  any  argument  that  rests  on 
mere  formal  ties  or  technical  obligations.  I  might  remind  every 
gentleman  who  hears  me,  that  he  has  concurred  in  an  address  to 
the  throne,  expressing  his  hearty  hope  that  the  opening  afforded 
by  the  glorious  successes  of  His  Majesty's  arms,  may  lead  to  "  the 
general  deliverance  of  Europe;"  and  pledging  himself,  in  no 
equivocal  manner,  to  assist  with  his  voice  and  counsel  in  the  pro- 
secution of  this  important  object.  I  might  require  them  to  re- 
concile, if  they  can,  the  pledge  there  taken  with  a  motion  which 
contradicts  both  its  letter  and  its  meaning.  But  I  prefer  going 
home  with  every  man  to  his  own  bosom,  and  desiring  him  to  re- 
member, what  were  his  first  individual  impressions  upon  receiving 
the  account  of  Lord  Nelson's  stupendous  achievement?  What 
was  the  language  of  every  society  in  which  he  happened  to  be 
conversant?  The  first  sentiment,  undoubtedly,  was  that  of  thanks, 
and  praise  to  the  heroes  who  had  thus  exalted  the  name,  the  pow- 
er, and  the  glory,  of  their  country,  and  of  humble  gratitude  to 
that  Providence  which  had  so  signally  prospered  their  exertions. 
But  next — what  occurred  to  every  man's  feelings  and  understand- 
ing? what  was  the  question  which  immediately  succeeded  to  the 
first  burst  of  wonder,  the  first  transport  of  thankfulness,  the  first 
emotions  of  rapture  and  delight?  I  see  I  am  anticipated,  "What 
effect  will  this  have  upon  the  powers  of  the  continent?"  This 
was  the  question  asked  and  echoed  by  a  thousand  tongues.  What 
then  was  the  meaning  of  this  question  ?  Was  it  the  offspring  of 
cold  speculation?  of  idle  curiosity?  No.  It  sprung  from  the  in- 
stantaneous, and  almost  instinctive,  conviction,  that,  in  spite  of  all 
the  sophisticated  argument  that  may  be  urged  to  dissuade  us  from 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  FRANCE.        43 

a  generous  sympathy  with  the  fates  and  fortunes  of  other  nations, 
we  have  an  interest  in  the  liberties  of  the  continent;  that  our 
"  assurance  is  doubly  sure,"  when  those  around  us  are  preserved 
from  destruction;  that  we  can  be  but  precariously  safe,  so  long  as 
there  is  no  safety  for  the  rest  of  Europe. 

Depend  upon  it,  Sir,  in  all  questions  which  partake  equally  of 
reason  and  of  feeling,  the  first  impressions  of  a  good  heart  and 
sound  mind  are  rarely  to  be  distrusted.  They  may  be  sanguine; 
they  may  be  romantic;  they  may  represent  the  object  desired  as 
much  nearer,  than  in  the  practical  pursuit  it  turns  out  to  be;  but 
as  to  the  object  itself,  they  are  seldom  misdirected.  And  I  be- 
lieve that  any  man  of  honest  and  liberal  feelings,  who  can  recol- 
lect what  were  his  first  impressions  upon  any  subject,  in  the  con- 
sideration of  which  the  heart,  as  well  as  the  understanding,  was 
engaged,  will  find  that,  in  consulting  those  impressions,  he  has 
not  been  led  astray.  How  stands  the  case  in  the  present  instance  ? 
Have  we  any  reason  to  repent  or  to  be  ashamed  of  the  wishes 
that  sprung  up  in  our  bosoms  upon  this  occasion?  Was  the  im- 
pulse too  generous,  and  must  it  be  restrained?  Was  the  benevo- 
lence too  large,  and  must  it  be  contracted?  What  new  circum- 
stances have  arisen  to  vary  our  original  view  of  the  subject?  Has 
England  become  less  powerful  to  interfere  ?  Has  the  slavery  of 
the  continent  been  lightened  ?  or  the  tyranny  of  France  softened 
or  subdued  ?  Or  has  some  disposition  for  peace  been  manifested 
by  the  enemy?  such  as  throws  difficulty  in  the  way  of  any  hos- 
tile and  offensive  operations  against  them;  and  requires  that  we 
should  rest  on  our  arms  until  their  intentions  shall  be  more  clear- 
ly explained?  I  have  heard  of  nothing  of  this  sort — Has  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman  ?  He  has  mentioned  nothing  of  it.  He  has  not 
pretended  that  France  is  willing  to  negotiate.  He  has  not  ad- 
vised that  we  should  propose  a  negotiation.  He  has,  indeed,  given 
it  as  his  opinion  that  peace  is  desirable;  and  he  has  drawn  some 
arguments  to  this  effect  from  Ireland,  from  the  East  Indies,  and 
from  St.  Domingo.  I  shall  not  follow  him  into  these  arguments; 
both  because  I  think  that  they  may,  all  of  them,  with  much 
greater  propriety,  be  reserved  for  a  separate  discussion  in  their 
due  time;  and  because,  unless  this  motion  were  to  be  understood 
distinctly  as  a  motion  for  peace,  I  do  not  see  how  they  can  be 
made  to  bear  upon  the  present  discussion. 

But  docs  the  honourable  gentleman  intend  his  motion,  as  a  mo- 
tion for  peace?  Then,  indeed,  I  should  have  a  worse  opinion  of 
it  than  I  had  before.  For  is  this  the  way  to  go  about  such  a  busi- 
ness, with  any  prospect,  or  with  any  serious  appearance  of  a  de- 
sire of  success?  [f  the  honourable  gentleman  really  thinks  this 
a  moment  for  opening  a  negotiation — why  has  he  not  the  candour 
and  manliness  to  say  so?     Lei  him   bring  the  matter  distinctly  to 


44  ON  MR.   TIERNEY'S  MOTION 

a  question;  and  let  us  argue  it.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying 
that  it  is  my  decided  opinion  that  this  is  not  the  moment.  But 
my  opinion  is  more  decided  still,  that,  if  this  were  the  moment, 
the  honourable  gentleman  has  chosen  the  very  worst  possible 
way  for  availing  ourselves  of  the  opening. 

Is  it  dignity,  and  etiquette,  and  national  honour,  that  stands  in 
the  way  of  a  more  direct  attempt  at  negotiation  ?  Is  it  necessary, 
in  the  honourable  gentleman's  judgment,  that  France  should 
make  the  first  overtures?  I  confess,  Sir,  I  have  no  such  delicacy; 
and  if  the  moment  seemed  to  me  proper  for  any  overtures  at  all, 
I  should  not  raise  much  squabble  about  who  should  offer,  or  who 
should  receive  them.  But  if  the  honourable  gentleman  has  this 
delicacy,  mark,  I  entreat  you,  how  delicately  he  manages  it.  He 
will  not  speak  to  France,  but  he  would  speak  at  her.  He  will 
not  propose — not  he — that  we  should  say  to  the  Directory,  "Will 
you  make  peace?"  No,  Sir,  we  are  merely  to  say  to  ourselves, 
loud  enough  for  the  Directory  to  overhear  us,  "  I  wish  these 
French  gentlemen  would  make  an  overture  to  us.',  Now,  Sir, 
does  this  save  the  dignity  of  the  country  ?  or  is  it  only  a  sneak- 
ing, shabby  way  of  doing  what,  if  fit  to  be  done  at  all,  must,  to 
have  any  serious  effect,  be  done  openly,  unequivocally,  and  di- 
rectly? But  I  beg  the  honourable  gentleman's  pardon:  I  misre- 
present him;  I  certainly  do.  His  motion  does  not  amount  even 
to  so  much  as  I  have  stated.  He  begins  farther  off.  The  solilo- 
quy which  he  prompts  us  by  his  motion  is  no  more  than  this — 
"  We  must  continue  to  make  war  against  France,  to  be  sure — and 
we  are  sorry  for  it,  but  we  will  not  do  it  as  if  we  bore  malice. 
We  will  not  make  an  ill-natured,  hostile  kind  of  war  any  longer 
— that  we  won't.  And  who  knows,  but,  if  they  should  happen 
to  overhear  this  resolution,  as  the  Directory  are  good-natured  at 
bottom,  their  hearts  may  soften  and  grow  kind  towards  us — and 
then  they  will  offer  to  make  a  peace!"  And  thus,  Sir,  and  thus 
only,  is  the  motion  a  motion  for  peace. 

But  the  honourable  gentleman  reproaches  His  Majesty's  minis- 
ters that  they  have  lost  all  their  pacific  dispositions;  that  they  are 
become  inveterately  and  incurably  warlike;  that  the  spirit  of 
moderation,  which  he  so  much  commended  in  the  manifesto  of 
last  year,  is  evaporated;  and  that,  however  they  may  have  stood 
out  against  Lord  Duncan's  victory,  that  of  Lord  Nelson  has  in- 
toxicated and  inflamed  them  to  madness. 

That  the  confidence  of  the  country  is  indeed  high,  I  am  happy 
to  acknowledge;  and  that  the  government  partakes  the  spirit  of 
the  people,  I  am  equally  willing  to  believe.  But  that  this  spirit 
has  started  suddenly  out  of  the  late  victory,  and  is  exclusively  to 
be  attributed  to  it,  I  cannot  agree.  It  was  confirmed,  indeed,  by 
that  victory,  a  victory  which  would  have  created  a  spirit  if  it  had 


RESPECTING  PEACE  WITH  FRANCE.  45 

not  found  one.  But  that  the  spirit  existed  before  the  event  of 
the  first  of  August,  is  no  derogation  to  the  glory  of  that  day,  and 
is  a  proud  accession  of  dignity  to  the  character  of  the  country.  It 
adds  new  lustre  to  the  character  of  the  country;  it  places  in  a  more 
conspicuous  light  the  talents  and  reputation  of  Lord  Nelson,  that 
before  we  were  in  possession  of  the  confidence  which  grew  out 
of  his  victory,  we  had  the  confidence  to  presume  it. 

Let  us  recollect  only  the  days  and  months  of  anxiety  which  we 
passed,  before  the  intelligence  of  that  memorable  event  had  reach- 
ed us.  It  was  an  anxiety,  not  of  apprehension,  but  of  impatience. 
Our  prayers  were  put  up,  not  for  success,  but  for  an  opportunity 
of  deserving  it:  we  asked,  not  that  Nelson  might  conquer  Buona- 
parte, but  that  Buonaparte  might  not  have  the  triumph  of  deceiv- 
ing and  escaping  him;  not  that  we  might  gain  the  battle,  but  that 
we  might  find  the  enemy:  for  the  rest  we  had  nothing  to  fear — 

"  Concurrant  pariter  cum  ratibus  rates ; 
Spectent  Numina  Ponti,  et 
Palmam,  qui  meruit,  ferat !" 

Standing,  then,  in  our  present  proud  and  exalted  situation,  for- 
tified by  that  confidence  which  has  its  foundation  in  the  good 
sense,  the  spirit,  the  unexampled  prosperity  of  the  nation,  and 
which,  by  the  blessing  of  Providence,  the  signal  and  glorious 
successes  of  our  arms  have  been  established  and  confirmed,  what  is 
the  best  advantage  that  can  be  made  of  such  a  situation?  "  Hoard 
up  your  safety  for  your  own  use,"  says  the  motion  of  the  honour- 
able gentleman.  "  Lend  a  portion  of  it  to  other  nations,  that  it 
may  be  returned  to  you  tenfold,  in  the  preservation  and  security 
of  the  world," — is  the  dictate  of  a  larger,  and,  I  think,  a  sounder 
policy. 

But  the  nations  of  the  continent,  the  honourable  gentleman 
will  tell  us,  stood  by,  while  we  were  engaged  in  a  struggle  in 
which  our  very  existence  was  at  stake,  without  offering  any  as- 
sistance, or  manifesting  any  interest  in  our  preservation:  un- 
doubtedly, so  they  did:  and  undoubtedly,  as  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman insinuates,  our  revenge  is  now  in  our  power.  We  may 
tell  those,  who  abandoned  us  at  that  moment  of  peril,  that  it  is 
now  our  turn  to  take  breath,  while  they  are  contending;  that  to 
us  is  now  the  respite,  and  to  them  the  toil;  that  as  they  left  us 
contentedly  to  our  fate,  we  consign  them  unpityingly  to  theirs. 
We  may  do  this  in  strict  retalliation:  but  I  think  a  British  House 
of  Commons  will  feel  that  we  have  a  nobler  vengeance  in  our 
power.  We  have  it  in  our  power  to  say  to  the  nations  of  Europe: 
"You  deserted  us  at  our  utmost  need;  but  the  first  use  that  we 
make  of  our  prosperity  is,  to  invite  you  to  partake  of  it.  We 
disdained  to  call  you  in,  reluctant  as  you  appeared,  to  share  our 


46  ON  MR.  TIERNEY'S  MOTION,   &C. 

danger;  but,  we  are  now,  by  our  own  exertions,  secure;  come, 
now,  and  take  shelter  under  our  security." 

Sir,  they  were  wise  words  that  were  spoken  by  a  great  states- 
man and  orator  of  ancient  times,  under  circumstances  not  wholly 
unlike  the  present  circumstances  of  the  world.  "  If  by  any  su- 
perhuman testimony,  for  to  such  a  paradox  no  testimony  merely 
human  could  possibly  obtain  belief,  if  by  an  angel  from  Heaven 
I  were  to  be  assured,  that  the  farther  the  enemy  pushed  his  con- 
quests over  other  countries,  the  more  territory  he  acquired — the 
more  governments  he  subverted — the  more  nations  he  subdued, 
— by  so  much  the  more  quiet,  the  more  harmless,  the  more  friend- 
ly neighbour  he  would  be  to  this  country:  I  protest  that  I  would 
not,  even  with  this  view,  and  under  these  conditions,  consent  to 
give  my  vote  for  the  slavery  of  Europe.  But  if  there  be  no  man 
upon  earth  who  will  venture  to  assert  so  monstrous  a  proposition; 
if  the  very  reverse  of  all  this  be  demonstrably  true;  if  every 
step  that  the  enemy  takes  upon  the  continent  be  a  step  to  the  ac- 
complishment of  our  destruction;  if  every  city  that  he  ransacks, 
every  district  that  he  acquires,  be  a  fund  of  wealth  and  a  levy  of 
soldiers,  to  be  employed  hereafter  in  an  exterminating  war  against 
us:  then,  in  God's  name,  to  what  do  we  look?  or  wherefore  are 
we  hesitating?" 

Since,  then,  Sir,  this  motion  appears  to  me  to  be  founded  on 
no  principle  of  policy  or  necessity;  since,  if  it  be  intended  for  a 
censure  on  ministers, — it  is  unjust;  if  for  a  control, — it  is  nuga- 
tory: as  its  tendency  is  to  impair  the  power  of  prosecuting  war 
with  vigour,  and  to  diminish  the  chance  of  negotiating  peace 
with  dignity,  or  concluding  it  with  safety;  as  it  contradicts,  with- 
out reason,  and  without  advantage,  the  established  policy  of  our 
ancestors;  as  it  must  degrade  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  the  char- 
racter  of  this  country;  as  it  must  carry  dismay  and  terror  through- 
out Europe;  and,  above  all,  as  it  must  administer  consolation,  and 
hope,  and  power,  and  confidence  to  France;  I  shall  give  it  my 
most  hearty  and  decided  negative. 


Mr.  Jekyll  supported  the  motion.  That  g-lorious  achievement,  the  victory 
of  the  Nile,  as  his  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Canning)  had  stated,  produced  a 
sensation  of  joy;  but  the  sensation  of  joy  it  occasioned,  was  combined  with  the 
hope  that  it  might  tend  to  the  restoration  of  peace.  He  protested  against  the 
propriety  of  this  country  embarking  upon  the  ocean  of  continental  politics,  and 
of  its  entering  the  lists  in  foreign  warfare,  without  our  knowing  the  purposes 
for  which  we  were  engaged,  or  the  extent  to  which  we  may  be  involved.  The 
motion  was  negatived. 


47 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

FEBRUARY  3d,  1808. 

Mr.  Ponsonby  this  day  made  the  motion,  of  which  lie  had  given  notice,  re- 
lative to  the  Expedition  to  Copenhagen.  The  object  he  had  in  view,  was  prin- 
cipally to  ascertain  how  far  His  Majesty's  Ministers  had  been  justified  in  ad- 
vising His  Majesty  to  employ  his  naval  and  military  forces  in  the  Expedition 
against  Copenhagen.  The  topics  necessary  for  the  mature  consideration  of  the 
subject  were  to  inquire,  first,  what  the  disposition  of  Denmark  had  been;  next, 
what  the  conduct  of  Russia  had  been;  and  lastly,  what  means  France  possessed 
of  executing  any  project  hostile  to  this  country  in  the  Baltic. 

At  the  close  of  a  former  war,  an  apology  was  stated  to  have  been  received 
from  Denmark  for  having  entered  into  a  hostile  confederacy  against  Great 
Britain,  which  apology  "was  founded  on  the  avowed  inability  of  Denmark  to 
resist  the  operation  of  external  influence  and  the  threats  of  a  formidable  neigh- 
bouring power."  He  had  inquired  into  this  subject,  and  had  been  told  that 
Denmark  never  did  send  such  an  apology  for  the  abandonment  of  its  neutrality. 
He  was  desirous  to  know  the  truth  of  the  fact,  and  he  could  not  conceive  what 
objection  could  be  made  to  the  production  of  the  papers  necessary  to  elucidate 
it,  if  they  really  existed. 

He  had  shaped  another  resolution,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  in- 
formation had  been  received  by  His  Majesty's  Ministers  respecting  the  conduct 
of  Denmark  with  respect  to  its  naval  force.  He  contended  that  no  steps  had 
been  taken  by  Denmark  to  awaken  jealousy  or  rouse  suspicion  on  our  part. 
He  had  made  it  his  business  to  inquire  what  had  been  the  conduct  of  Denmark 
with  regard  to  their  own  ships,  and  their  valuable  cargoes,  which  were  in  the 
ports  of  Great  Britain,  at  the  very  time  that  the  Expedition  against  Copenhagen 
was  fitting  out.  When  Admiral  Gambier  was  preparing  to  sail,  many  of  the 
Danish  captains  hearing,  amongst  other  rumours,  that  it  was  as  likely  that  the 
British  force  was  destined  against  Denmark  as  against  any  other  place,  con- 
sulted the  Danish  Consul  on  the  subject.  The  Consul  applied  to  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  in  Copenhagen,  a  branch  of  the  public  administration  of  Govern- 
ment. He  received  for  answer,  that  there  was  not  the  smallest  ground  for 
anxiety  or  alarm  on  the  part  of  the  Danish  mercantile  interest,  for  that  no 
such  circumstances  existed  which  tended  to  disturb  the  neutrality  of  Denmark, 
or  to  place  her  in  a  state  of  hostility  with  Great  Britain.  At  the  time  that  this 
answer  was  received,  there  were  three  hundred  and  fifty  Danish  ships  in  British 
ports,  with  cargoes  amounting  to  two  millions  sterling.  Was  it  possible  to 
suppose,  that  under  these  circumstances,  when  the  Danish  Government  de- 
clared to  her  commercial  interest  that  they  need  not  hurry  themselves — that 
there  was  no  fear  of  an  interruption  of  the  good  understanding  with  Great 
Britain?  Was  it  possible  to  suppose,  that  when  a  third  of  the  commercial 
property  of  Denmark  was  in  our  hands,  the  Danish  Government  meditated 
hostility  against  us?    Such  a  thing  was  incredible. 

But  it  was  said,  that  though  Denmark  herself  might  entertain  no  hostile  dis- 
position again  I  Greal  Britain,  she  was  likely  soon  to  be  forced  into  a  state  of 
hostility,  and  that,  therefore,  we  were  justified  in  seizing  her  marine,  without 
any  previous  notice  to  Denmark,  and  without  any  previous  behaviour  on  her 
part  to  provoke  us  to  that  seizure  [f  our  conduct  could  be  at  all  justified  on 
this  ground,  it  must  be  on  the  necessity  of  anticipating  the  views  of  the  enemy 
with  regard  to  the  Danish  licet.     No  writer  on  the  law  of  nations,  or  on  any 


48  EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN. 

other  law,  or  on  common  justice,  had  ever  maintained  that  one  Power  could  be 
justified  in  taking  from  another  Power  what  belonged  to  it,  unless  a  third 
Power  meant,  and  was  able  to  take,  the  same  thing.  The  justification  of  this 
step,  therefore,  must  rest  on  the  necessity  of  it,  which  would  depend  on  these 
circumstances — the  weakness  of  Denmark,  or  her  indisposition  to  resist  com- 
pulsion; the  strength  of  her  enemy,  and  the  certainty  that  she  must  yield  to 
its  force.  Every  shadow  of  proof  that  Denmark  must  have  yielded  to  a  hostile 
confederacy  was  out  of  the  case.  It  was  necessary  to  inquire  what  were  the 
means  which  France  possessed  of  accomplishing  her  object.  One  of  his  resolu- 
tions went  to  ascertain  what  information  His  Majesty's  Minsters  had  received 
respecting  the  power  that  France  possessed  of  seizing  the  Danish  navy.  If 
His  Majesty's  Ministers  knew  the  intentions  of  France  on  this  subject,  surely 
they  were  not  so  negligent  as  to  omit  informing  themselves  of  her  power  to 
carry  those  intentions  into  excution.  What  was  the  relative  situation  of  the 
two  countries?  At  the  time  that  Admiral  Gambier  sailed,  a  great  part  of  the 
Danish  army  was  encamped  in  Holstein;  a  considerable  French  force  was  also 
in  the  same  place.  This  disposition  of  the  two  armies  showed  no  intention  in 
Denmark  to  yield  to  France.  Had  she  entertained  such  an  intention,  she  would 
not  have  advanced  a  force  against  a  French  force.  The  question  then  came  to 
be,  was  the  French  force  sufficient  "  to  induce  or  compel "  (such  were  the  terms 
of  His  Majesty's  Declaration),  Denmark  to  yield  to  the  views  of  France  1  In 
his  opinion,  it  was  utterly  insufficient.  Let  the  House  consider  the  situation 
of  Denmark.  She  possessed  considerable  countries  on  the  main  continent  of 
Europe,  but  she  had  still  more  valuable  possessions  in  Norway,  the  Danish 
islands,  (on  one  of  which  her  capital  was  situated),  and  considerable  foreign 
colonies.  Had  France,  therefore,  required  Denmark  to  give  up  her  fleet  that 
it  might  be  employed  against  Great  Britain,  what  would  Denmark  have  an- 
swered? "No,  you  have  no  right  to  make  such  a  demand;  it  is  a  manifest 
usurpation  on  your  part.  If  you  make  me  choose  between  hostility  with  Eng- 
land and  hostility  with  France,  I  prefer  the  latter:  for  if  I  quarrel  with  Eng- 
land, England  can  take  from  me  all  my  foreign  possessions;  she  can  injure  my 
marine,  and  employ  Sweden  to  attack  me  in  Norway.  It  is,  therefore,  better 
for  me  to  keep  that  which  you  cannot  take  from  me,  than  to  sacrifice  it  by  a 
war  with  England."  This  would  have  been  the  conduct  of  Denmark,  if  the 
rashness  and  precipitation  of  His  Majesty's  Ministers  had  not  forced  her  into 
hostility  against  Great  Britain. 

The  next  consideration  was,  how  far  France  was  to  receive  assistance  in  the 
execution  of  her  projects  from  Russia  1  Immediately  after  the  conclusion  of 
peace  at  Tilsit,  it  had  been  argued  by  many  that  Russia  had  thrown  herself 
into  the  arms  of  France,  and  thereby  had  given  preponderance  to  that  power 
in  the  north  of  Europe.  To  those  who  believed  this,  it  must  have  been  strange 
to  see  the  Danish  marine  taken  possession  of  by  this  country,  and  the  Russian 
marine  permitted  to  rove  about  at  pleasure.  In  one  of  Lord  Leveson  Gower's 
despatches,  dated  the  2d  of  September,  (p.  191),  his  lordship  stated,  that  in  a 
conference  with  General  Budberg,  the  General  allowed  the  existence  of  secret 
articles  in  the  Treaty  of  Tilsit,  but  declared  that  those  articles  had  no  reference 
to  England.  Now,  it  had  been  insisted  in  His  Majesty's  Declaration  relative 
to  Russia  and  Denmark,  that  it  was  a  knowledge  of  those  secret  articles  that 
had  induced  His  Majesty  to  take  the  steps  that  he  had  done  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  Danish  fleet.  It  therefore  became  material  to  know  when  His 
Majesty's  Ministers  became  acquainted  with  those  secret  articles,  how  far  they 
related  to  Denmark,  and  how  far  by  those  articles  France  approached  her  pur- 
pose, with  regard  to  the  marine  of  that  country. 

****** 

There  were  two  or  three  most  material  paragraphs  in  the  despatches  of 
Lord  L.  Gower,  which  he  should  notice.     The  case  which  his  Majesty's  Minis- 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  49 

ters  wished  to  make  out  was,  that  Russia  had  been  all  this  while  secretly  in- 
stigating Denmark  to  join  the  confederacy  against  us ;  and  yet  on  the  4th  of 
November,  His  Majesty's  Minister  at  St.  Petersbugh,  after  detailing  the  diffi- 
culties which  he  had  experienced  in  obtaining  an  interview  with  Count  Roman- 
zow,  says,  that  "  he  had  been  informed  that  some  members  of  tiie  Council,  who 
had  been  consulted  in  the  present  very  critical  state  of  afiairs,  had  advised  the 
Emperor  not  to  reject  the  present  opportunity  of  re-establishing  the  tranquillity 
of  the  North  of  Europe,  and  that  their  opinion  had  been  adopted."  So  then, 
down  to  the  4th  of  November  the  Emperor  of  Russia  entertained  this  favour- 
able disposition  towards  England !  In  the  next  despatch,  enclosing  the  Russian 
Declaration,  Lord  Gower  observes,  that  General  Savary  and  the  other  members 
of  the  French  mission,  "boasted,  that  they  had  gained  a  complete  triumph,  and 
had  carried  not  only  this  act  of  hostility  against  England,  but  also  every  other 
point  essential  to  the  success  of  Buonaparte's  views."  What !  had  they  been 
labouring  from  the  conclusion  of  the  Treaty  of  Tilsit  down  to  the  beginning 
of  November,  before  they  could  succeed  in  carrying  these  "  points  so  essential 
to  the  success  of  Buonaparte's  views'!"  and  was  that  conduct  of  Russia  to  be 
assigned  as  a  reason  for  our  breaking  in  upon  a  neutral  nation  and  robbing  her 
of  her  fleet !  In  no  period  of  the  history  of  any  country  could  a  similar  trans- 
action be  found.  But,  suppose  he  were  to  concede  in  argument,  that  which 
was  completely  contradicted  by  the  despatches  on  the  table,  that  Russia  had 
been  active  in  forming  a  confederacy  against  Great  Britain,  was  there  the 
smallest  proof  that  Denmark  would  have  been  disposed  to  join  it!  And  what 
means  had  Russia  to  compel  her?  She  could  not  march  an  army  down  the 
Baltic;  and  what  fleet  had  she  to  oppose  against  the  united  fleets  of  England, 
Denmark,  and  Sweden  1  The  power  of  protecting  the  neutrality  of  Denmark 
was  all  on  the  side  of  England,  not  on  France.  Was  it  probable  that  Denmark 
would  have  sacrificed  her  East  and  West  India  possessions,  her  own  Islands, 
and  Norway,  because  France  might  have  threatened  her  with  the  loss  of  Jut- 
land and  Holstein!  He  defied  the  right  honourable  Secretary  to  show  on  the 
table  one  syllable  of  evidence,  that  Denmark  entertained  such  an  intention. 
He  had  shaped  other  Resolutions,  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  what  had  been 
the  conduct  of  His  Majesty's  Ministers  with  respect  to  Denmark  herself;  and 
whether,  having  determined  to  pursue  a  course  hostile  to  her  interests,  they 
had  pursued  a  course  advantageous  to  ours. 

By  what  Ministers  had  done,  they  had  provoked  hostility  without  depriving 
the  enemy  of  the  power  of  revenge.  If  our  army  had  been  able  to  beat  the 
Danes,  as  asserted  the  other  evening  by  a  noble  lord,  might  we  not  have  kept 
Zealand!  With  the  assistance  of  Sweden  and  of  our  own  reinforcements, 
what  chance  would  France  and  Denmark,  united,  have  had,  to  get  back  this 
important  possession  !  To  abandon  it  was  the  height  of  weakness.  But  even 
if  we  had  not  kept,  Zealand,  could  we  not  have  dismantled  the  arsenal  and  de- 
stroyed the  docks !  Could  we  not  have  blown  up  the  Crown  Batteries  and 
Cronenberg  Castle,  and  secured  to  ourselves  the  quiet  passage  of  the  Sound  ! 
Why  so  shabby  in  our  iniquities'?  When  we  imitated  the  atrocities  of  the 
ruler  of  France,  why  not  imitate  the  grandeur  and  magnitude  of  his  designs? 
Would  Buonaparte,  under  similar  circumstances,  have  given  up  Zealand?  The 
conduct  of  Ministers  showed  how  weak  it  was  to  do  ill  by  halves.  If  it  was 
necessary  to  attack  Denmark  at  all,  then  it  was  their  duty  to  render  her  as  in- 
efficient as  possible.  The  same  motives  that  justified  (lie  one  would  justify 
the  other.  He  presumed  that  it  was  not  want  of  will  in  the  right  honourable 
gentlemen  opposite,  but  want  of  knowledge.  He  trusted  at  least,  that  they 
would  not  talk  of  scruples,  or  morality,  or  law:  these,  according  to  the  modern 
tenets,  were  considerations  fit  only  for  fools  and  philosophers,  not  for  statesmen. 
Would  they  venture  to  contend,  that  it  was  no  disadvantage  to  Great  Britain 
to  have  the  Sound  shut,  against  hei  commerce,  to  have  Zealand  created,  what 

8  F 


50  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

it  certainly  would  be,  a  strong  depository  of  force  against  her  arms?  Having 
begun  the  work  of  destruction,  they  neglected  their  duty  by  not  completing  it 
Let  them  not  say  that  he  gave  counsel  so  atrocious,  so  monstrous,  that  their 
delicacy  and  sensibility  would  not  allow  them  to  accept  it. 

Were  Ministers,  he  would  ask,  disposed  to  put  Ireland  in  a  state  of  greater  dis- 
contentment than  that  in  which  she  was  at  present  J  If*  not,  why  leave  Denmark 
so  much  power !  Having  alienated  Denmark  from  England,  France  would  con- 
struct in  Copenhagen  fleets  much  faster,  better  and  cheaper,  than  in  any  other 
port  of  Europe.  His  Majesty's  Ministers  had  expressed  great  solicitude  for 
Sweden.  A  subsidiary  treaty  with  Sweden  was  soon  to  be  laid  on  the  table 
of  the  House.  France  had  long  been  the  enemy  of  Sweden ;  Russia  probably 
had  become  so.  Denmark  was  rendered  the  ally  of  France,  and  thus  by  re- 
fraining from  dismantling  Zealand,  Sweden  was  exposed  to  the  greatest  danger. 
All  these  considerations  pressed  with  the  greatest  urgency  for  the  fullest  in- 
formation on  the  subject.  There  did  not  appear  to  him  the  slightest  justifica- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  Ministers  with  regard  to  Denmark.  If  they  could  justify 
themselves  for  the  acts  that  they  had  committed,  then  they  could  not  justify 
themselves  for  the  acts  that  they  had  not  committed.  In  commencing  the  war, 
in  carrying  on  the  war,  in  the  mode  of  seeking  for  peace,  in  all,  he  thought 
them  completely  wrong,  and  on  all,  he  demanded  the  fullest  information. 

He  was  anxious  the  character  of  the  country  should  stand  as  fair  as  it  always 
had  done,  and  that  it  should  not  be  made  a  reproach  to  us,  that  at  the  very  time 
we  were  most  vehement  in  condeming  the  atrocity  of  France,  we  went  far  be- 
yond it.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  concluded  with  moving  his  first 
Resolution :  viz.  "  That  an  humble  address  be  presented  to  His  Majesty,  pray- 
ing that  he  would  be  graciously  pleased  to  give  directions  that  there  be  laid 
before  the  House,  the  substance  and  dates  of  all  information  transmitted  by 
His  Majesty's  Minister  at  the  Court  of  Copenhagen,  during  the  last  year,  re- 
specting' the  Naval  Force  of  Denmark;  and  particularly  respecting  any  mea- 
sures taken  for  augmenting  the  same,  or  putting  it  in  a  state  of  better  prepara- 
tion, or  for  collecting  seamen  for  the  purpose  of  manning  the  same,  or  any 
part  thereof." 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning  then  rose.  He  commenced  his  reply- 
by  observing,  that  the  moment  was  at  length  arrived,  when  the 
gentlemen  opposite,  so  peculiarly  qualified  by  their  own  splendid 
achievements,  to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of  their  successors,  had, 
by  a  worthy  selection  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  who  had 
jusl  sat  down,  put  His  Majesty's  Ministers  on  their  trial  for  that, 
which,  until  questioned  by  them,  had  been  considered  as  the  sal- 
vation of  the  country.  In  the  greatness  of  his  apprehension,  lest 
all  moral  impressions  should  be  effaced  from  the  minds  of  the 
House,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  taken  a  course  which 
afforded  a  brilliant  example  of  a  morality,  not  only  out  of  the  or- 
dinary track,  but  more  severe  even  than  that  Roman  morality, 
which  he  knew  had  its  admirers  on  the  opposite  bench.  His 
Majesty's  Ministers  were  called — not  to  account  for  disaster  and 
disgrace;  but  to  answer  an  accusation  of  success,  and  justify  the 
motives  of  an  eminent  service.  Whatever  might  be  the  decision 
of  the  House,  he,  for  one,  should  always  feel  the  highest  satisfac- 
tion in  having  been  so  accused.  It  was  also  a  source  of  peculiar 
gratification,  that  no  imputation  could  rest  on  those  gentlemen  by 
whom  this  motion  was  brought  forward,  of  being  actuated  by 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  51 

party  feelings,  as  had  sometimes  happened,  when  the  successors 
of  an  administration  had  been  left  in  possession  of  a  glory,  which 
they  had  tarnished.  Envious  feelings  of  comparison  could  not 
have  instigated  the  present  motion;  as  when  nothing  had  been 
done  by  one  set  of  men,  it  was  impossible  to  find  actions  of  theirs 
to  compare  with  what  had  been  done  by  another. 

There  was  another  feature  in  this  transaction  honourable  to  the 
character  of  the  House,  they  were  not  then  debating  how  to  ward 
off  impending  danger,  but,  in  comparative  security,  were  discuss- 
ing by  what  mode  that  security  could  be  continued.  According 
to  the  sentiments  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite,  the 
restoration  of  the  Danish  fleet  would  be  the  best  mode  of  contin- 
uing that  security;  for,  certainly,  if  it  were  decided  that  the  taking 
of  them  was  unjust,  the  justice  of  retaining  them  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  maintained.  The  House  could  not  blame  the  spoilers, 
and  yet  keep  the  spoil.  Though  he  could  not  agree  with  the 
right  honourable  gantleman  in  his  conclusion,  he  agreed  with  him 
ia  his  premises,  that  if  injustice  had  been  done,  it  should  be  not 
only  marked  but  repaired. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  had  fairly  stated,  that  the  dis- 
position of  Denmark  and  Russia,  and  the  means  of  France,  con- 
stituted the  question  before  the  House.     He  had  admitted  the  de- 
signs of  France,  without  any  other  evidence  than  that  contained 
in  His  Majesty's  speech.     With  respect  to  the  disposition  of  Den- 
mark, he  begged  the  right  honourable  gentleman  to  recollect,  at 
the  outset,  that  it  was  not  asserted  by  His  Majesty's  Ministers, 
that  wilfully,  knowingly,  and  of  choice,  Denmark  had  been  desi- 
rous of  war  with  Great  Britain  rather  than  of  peace.     This  had 
neither  been  maintained,  nor  was  it  necessary  to  be  so: — indeed, 
a  right  honourable  friend  of  his,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  House, 
(Mr.  Sheridan,)  had  said,  on  a  late  evening,  that  a  case  of  weak- 
ness on  the  part  of  Denmark,  and  of  a  determination  to  avail  her- 
self of  that  weakness  on  the  part  of  France,  would  alone  be  a  jus- 
tification of  the  conduct  of  the  British  Government.     But  though 
he  did  not  impute  to   Denmark  a  disposition  to  go  to  war  with 
this  country,  he  protested  against  the  advantage  which  was  taken 
of  this  admission,  when  it  was  asserted,  that  we  had  the  hearts  of 
the  Danes,  and  thai  we  had  forfeited  them.     He  did  not  like  talk- 
ing of  national  dislikes;   hut  such   an  observation  evinced  a  most 
complete  blindness  to  the  fact,  that  from  the  moment  of  the  Armed 
Neutrality,  in  1780,  there  had  been  a  feeling  towards  this  coun- 
try, on  the  part  of  Denmark,  if  not  of  direct  hostility,  certainly 
not  of  very  cordial  friendship. 

Every  body  knew  what  had  been  the  conduct  of  Denmark  at 
the  end  of  two  former  wars.  In  inciting  the  Armed  Neutrality 
of  1780,  Denmark  had  been  an  active  agent;  and  at  the  end  of 


52  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

1800,  but  a  few  months  after  Denmark  had  declared  her  abandon- 
ment of  the  principles  on  which  the  Armed  Neutrality  was 
formed,  she  again  entered  into  a  league  confederated  against  Great 
Britain.  Did  this  testify  the  good  intentions  of  Denmark?  Or, 
on  the  other  hand,  did  it  testify  her  means  of  resisting  the  influ- 
ence of  superior  powers  ?  Let  whichever  part  of  the  alternative 
the  House  chose  be  adopted,  he  would  not  hesitate  to  say,  that 
any  Government  would  be  lost  to  a  due  sense  of  the  interests  of 
the  country,  if,  with  a  recollection  of  former  occurrences,  they 
had  not  looked  with  vigilance  and  suspicion  to  see  how  Denmark 
would  conduct  herself  at  a  period  of  so  much  greater  danger  to 
Great  Britain.  Was  it  not  probable  that  a  league  of  much  more 
force,  and  knit  with  much  greater  vigour  than  any  preceding  one, 
would  be  formed  against  this  country?  Was  it  not  probable,  from 
the  experience  of  the  past,  that  Denmark  would  be  induced  by 
inclination,  or  compelled  by  force,  to  join  that  league?  The  fa- 
vourite project  of  Buonaparte,  since  he  had  desisted  from  his 
threat  of  immediate  invasion,  was  to  destroy  our  commerce,  and 
to  collect  a  naval  force  which  should  run  down  the  navy  of  Great 
Britain.  Not  a  treaty  did  he  conclude  in  which  the  exclusion  of 
British  merchandise  and  shipping,  did  not  form  a  leading  article. 
In  terms  too  plain  to  be  mistaken,  he  had  avowed  his  intention  to 
bring  every  power  of  the  Continent  to  act  against  Great  Britain. 
Was  there  any  thing  in  the  situation  of  Denmark  which  rendered 
it  probable  that  she  was  out  of  his  view  in  this  avowal  ?  To  all 
these  presumptions  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  thought 
it  sufficient  to  answer,  that  Denmark  had  prepared  against  any  at- 
tempt, on  the  part  of  France,  to  control  her  conduct,  by  station- 
ing a  military  force  in  Holstein.  What  was  the  history  of  that 
force?  The  greatest  danger  to  which  Denmark  was  exposed  from 
France  was  in  1803,  when  France  occupied  Hanover  with  a  large 
force.  Then  not  a  man  was  in  Holstein  beyond  the  peace  garri- 
son. Did  the  boasted  cordon  of  Holstein  remain  in  this  state  un- 
til the  period  when  France  seemed  disposed  to  molest  Denmark? 
No — only  until  the  armies  of  England  and  Sweden  were  in  force 
in  Hanover;  then,  and  not  till  then,  the  Danes  increased  their 
military  power  in  Holstein.  He  must  be  an  ingenious  arguer 
who  could  deduce  from  this  circumstance  that  England  had  been 
the  object  of  the  sympathy  of  Denmark,  and  France  of  her  ap- 
prehension. After  the  battle  of  Jena,  the  territory  of  Denmark 
had  been  violated  by  a  French  detachment,  in  pursuit  of  a  Prus- 
sian corps,  and  a  slight  skirmish  took  place  with  the  Danish 
troops,  in  which  a  Danish  general  was  taken,  and  conveyed  to  the 
head-quarters  of  (lie  French  general,  where,  in  place  of  being 
treated  with  the  distinction  to  be  expected  from  an  officer  of  a 
friendly  Power,  he  met  with  no  very  flattering  reception;  and  was 


EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN.  53 

sent  back,  after  his  horse  had  been  stolen,  and  his  pockets  picked, 
under  every  species  of  injury  which  a  licentious  soldiery  could  in- 
flict. This  had  been  done  whilst  the  Danish  army,  collected  to 
cover  the  neutrality  of  Holstein,  was  stationed  in  the  neighbour- 
hood. Was  this  event  followed  by  the  advance  of  that  army  ? 
No  such  thing;  the  insult  was  immediately  succeeded  by  the  re- 
treat of  the  Danish  army;  and  this  circumstance  produced  a  re- 
monstrance on  the  part  of  tbe  British  Government,  against  the 
conduct  of  the  Danish  Government,  in  neglecting  to  vindicate  its 
neutrality.  The  mention  of  this  circumstance  led  him  to  con- 
tradict a  misrepresentation  which  had  been  charged  against  the 
British  Government,  namely,  that  the  Danish  army  had  been  sta- 
tioned in  Holstein  at  its  desire,  in  order  that  its  designs  against 
Copenhagen  might  be  more  easily  accomplished.  This  statement 
was  so  wholly  unfounded,  that  it  was  not  till  the  retreat  of  the 
Danish  army,  before  a  handful  of  French  troops,  that  the  British 
Government  had  made  a  representation,  complaining  that  that 
was  not  the  way  for  Denmark  to  enforce  its  neutrality. 

The  conduct  of  France  to  Sweden  was  very  different.  When 
the  French  division,  commanded  by  General  Murat,  entered  Lu- 
beck,  two  thousand  Swedish  troops  were  made  prisoners,  after 
the  storming  of  the  town,  and  the  general  who  commanded  them, 
was  not  only  treated  with  every  distinction  due  to  his  rank  and 
character,  but  sent  back  with  a  message  to  the  King  of  Sweden 
from  the  French  General,  the  brother-in-law  of  Buonaparte,  in- 
viting him  to  make  common  cause  with  France,  intimating  that 
it  would  be  for  his  advantage  to  do  so,  and  hinting  that  it  was  un- 
natural for  Denmark  to  possess  Norway,  which  ought  to  be  an- 
nexed to  Sweden.  This  had  been  the  conduct  of  France  towards 
Sweden,  at  a  period  cotemporary  with  the  assertion  of  the  Danish 
neutrality;  and  when  afterwards  a  negotiation  was  entered  into  at 
Hamburgh,  for  the  release;  of  the  Swedish  prisoners,  the  same 
communication  was  made  to  tbe  Swedish  charge  d'affaires  there. 
What  was  the  conduct  of  the  King  of  Sweden  upon  this  occasion? 
He  sent  immediately  to  acquaint  the  Crown  Prince  with  the  offer 
that  had  been  made  to  him,  and  proffered  the  assistance  of  twenty 
thousand  Swedish  1  coops  for  the  defence  of  Denmark,  an  assist- 
ance which  the  British  Government  also  had  strongly  recom- 
mended to  the  acceptance  of  the  Government  of  Denmark.  This 
offer,  thus  recommended  on  our  part,  had  been  rejected  by  the 
Danish  Government,  which,  in  communicating  the  terms  of  the 
offer,  concealed  entirely  the  proposal  of  France  respecting  Nor- 
way. Could  the  right  honourable  gentlemen  then  contend,  that, 
after  such  conduct,  we  had  a  right  to  rely  on  the  frank  and  full 
declaration  of  Denmark?  Shortlj  Hamburgh  was  evacuated 

by  the  French,  bul  re-occupied  on   the   I  nth  of  November,  only 

F* 


54  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

two  days  before  the  famous  Decree  of  the  21st  November.  This 
Decree  was  communicated  to  the  Danish  Government,  and  no  re- 
monstrance was  made  against  it;  yet,  when  the  mitigated  measure 
of  retaliation  was  afterwards  resorted  to  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment, then  the  rage  of  the  Danish  Government  was  excited,  and 
a  determination  to  resist  its  execution  declared.  It  was  due,  how- 
ever, in  justice  to  the  noble  lord  who  preceded  him  in  office, 
(Lord  Howick,)  to  state,  that  this  determination  had  been  man- 
fully met;  which  led  to  its  abandonment.  He  did  not  mean  to 
insist  on  this  as  conclusive,  though  it  amounted  to  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that,  whether  from  predilection  or  necessity,  the  Danish 
Government  had  no  power  of  election  between  England  and 
France;  there  was  no  choice,  no  discussion,  no  reasoning  upon  the 
subject. 

The  magistrates  of  Hamburgh  had  remonstrated  against  the 
decree  of  the  21st  of  November,  and  sent  a  deputation  to  wait 
upon  Buonaparte  with  it.  In  the  conference  which  the  deputies 
had  with  Buonaparte,  they  represented  to  him  the  ruin  of  com- 
merce that  would  be  the  consequence  of  pursuing  his  wild  plan 
of  restrictions;  to  which  his  answer  was,  "that  he  would  anni- 
hilate all  commerce;  for,  as  commerce  and  England  were  identi- 
fied, and  he  was  determined  that  England  should  fall,  it  was  ne- 
cessary that  commerce  should  fall  also."  But  he  did  not  stop 
there;  he  added,  "that  he  would  make  others  co-operate  with 
him;"  and  then  adverting  to  this  mighty  neutral,  this  powerful 
independent  state,  he  said,  "let  that  little  Prince  take  care,  or  I 
shall  teach  him  how  to  act."  This  was  not  a  private  communica- 
tion, but  a  statement  in  a  conference  which  had  since  been  pub- 
lished. What  was  it  that  Buonaparte  was  to  teach  the  Crown. 
Prince  of  Denmark,  to  whom*  he  directed  such  an  insulting  ob- 
servation as  no  one  individual  could  address  to  another  without 
offence,  except  the  manner  of  making  his  means  subservient  to 
the  views  of  the  French  Government?  When  the  French  shut 
the  Elbe  and  the  Weser,  the  Danish  Governtment  consented  to 
the  measure  without  a  murmur,  but  remonstrated  strongly  against 
our  blockade  of  those  rivers,  though  the  remonstrance  was  after- 
wards given  up,  when  it  was  found  that  it  would  be  injurious  to 
their  own  commerce  to  press  their  objections  to  the  measure. 
That  it  was  not  the  determination  of  the  Danish  Government  to 
defend  Holstein  against  the  French,  appeared  evident  from  a  va- 
riety of  opinions,  which  he  found  recorded  in  his  office.  The 
right  honourable  gentleman  had  called  for  copies  of  correspond- 
ence to  show  what  was  the  immediate  intention  of  Denmark;  but 
he  must  contend,  that  the  concurrent  opinions  of  several  Minis- 
ters at  different  times,  and  under  similar  circumstances,  were 
more  to  be  depended  upon  as  a  ground  of  decision,  than  the  opin- 


EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN.  55 

ion  of  any  individual,  however  qualified  he  might  be  to  form  a 
correct  judgment.  [The  right  honourable  secretary  here  read  ex- 
tracts from  several  despatches  from  Mr.  Garlicke,  dated  Copenha- 
gen, December  1806,  stating,  that,  after  the  French  Decree  of  the 
21st  November  had  been  communicated  to  the  Danish  Govern- 
ment, a  demand  was  made  that  the  Danish  army  should  be  with- 
drawn from  Holstein;  that  no  English  or  Swedish  troops  should 
be  allowed  to  enter  the  Danish  territory,  nor  any  measures  taken 
demonstrative  of  distrust  of  France;  that  on  receipt  of  this  intel- 
ligence at  Kiel,  relays  of  horses  had  been  provided,  not  for  the 
advance,  but  to  secure  the  retreat  of  the  Crown  Prince.  He  also 
read  from  a  subsequent  despatch,  dated  28th  December,  1806, 
that  no  preparations  for  defence  had  been  made,  nor  any  inclina- 
tion shown  to  resort  to  the  aid  of  the  natural  allies  of  Denmark; 
that  several  persons  employed  in  the  offices  of  state,  though  not 
in  the  highest  department,  acted  in  collusion  with  France,  and 
were  attached  to  the  French  interests;  that  these  persons  would 
have  considerable  influence  on  the  opinions  respecting  the  defence 
of  the  country;  and  that,  viewing  the  indolence  of  some,  and  the 
activity  of  others,  at  the  Danish  Court,  he  (Mr.  Garlicke)  thought 
it  his  duty  to  state  the  truth,  that  there  was  reason  to  conclude 
that  when  France  was  in  an  attitude  to  enforce  her  demand,  she 
would  insist  upon  the  exclusion  of  British  vessels  from  the  ports 
of  Denmark,  and  probably  afterwards  upon  the  surrender  of  the 
dock  yards  of  Copenhagen;  and  that  it  was  therefore  the  more 
necessary  for  the  British  Government  to  use  every  means  of  vigi- 
lance and  precaution,  to  defeat  the  designs  of  the  enemy  in  that 
quarter.] 

These  had  been  the  opinions  of  that  Minister  upon  the  policy 
and  temper  of  the  Danish  Government:  and  yet  that  was  the 
Power  upon  whose  determination  they  were  required  implicitly 
to  rely.  It  would  not  be  just  for  him,  in  stating  these  facts,  to 
withhold  his  tribute  of  applause  from  those  who  had  preceded 
him  in  the  office  he  had  now  the  honour  to  fill,  and  who  had  met 
with  firmness  the  remonstrances  and  demonstrations  of  the  Danish 
Government.  Tin;  noble  lord  who  had  immediately  preceded 
him  had  instructed  Mr.  Garlicke  to  declare  to  the  Danish  Govern- 
ment, that  His  Majesty  could  never,  in  the  event  of  that  Power 
submitting  to  the  control  of  France,  suffer  either  the  whole  or  a 
part  of  its  navy  to  he  placed  at  the  disposal  of  France.  (Loud 
cries  of  hear,  hear!)  The  honourable  gentlemen  opposite  might 
continue  their  acclamations,  but  the  opinion  was  cut  it  led  to  respect. 
Perhaps,  however,  the  noble  lord  had  not  considered  the  means 
adequate  to  the  end,  and  did  not  look  upon  the  capture  of  Hol- 
stein as  more  likely  to  secure  the  possession  of  the  Danish  fleet, 
than  the  conquest  of  Alexandria  that  of  the  Turks.     But  the  in- 


56  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

structions  of  the  noble  lord  went  on  to  say,  that  if  the  Danes 
should  suffer  the  French  to  occupy  Holstein,  His  Majesty  could 
not  abstain  from  those  measures  which  would  be  necessary  to 
maintain  the  honour  of  his  crown  and  assert  the  interest  of  his 
subjects.     (Loud  cries  of  hear,  hear!  from  the  opposition.) 

He  presumed,  from  their  acclamations,  that  the  gentlemen  op- 
posite inferred,  that  these  measures  should  not  be  resorted  to  un- 
til the  Danish  navy  should  be  actually  taken,  or  until  the  agree- 
ment should  be  entered  into  for  its  surrender,  or  until  a  commu- 
nication of  such  agreement  should  be  made  by  a  government, 
which  had  entered  into  a  convention  with  this  country  in  August, 
and  in  the  December  following  had  violated  that  convention.  The 
whole  conduct  of  that  court  showed,  that,  either  from  necessity 
or  inclination,  it  would  have  taken  a  part  against  this  country, 
and  it  was  no  weak  presumption  of  such  an  event,  that  all  the  of- 
fers of  France  had  been  kept  back  from  this  country,  whilst  they 
were  amusing  us  with  the  assurance,  that  they  placed  an  implicit 
reliance  upon  the  declarations  of  France. 

He  had  been  hitherto  speaking  of  the  state  of  Denmark  in  De- 
cember 1807,  and  January  1S08,  when  Buonaparte  was  employed 
at  a  distance  in  Poland,  against  armies,  certainly  not  equal  to  his 
own,  but  which  kept  him  at  bay,  and  by  a  small  assistance  might 
have  been  rendered  equal  to  his  armies.  By  what  means  could 
Denmark  defend  herself  against  the  French,  when  Buonaparte 
should  return  with  his  whole  force  triumphant  from  Poland,  after 
she  had  refused  the  assistance  that  had  been  offered  to  her?  Of 
all  persons  he  did  not  think  that  His  Majesty's  Ministers  should 
be  accused  of  injustice  by  the  captors  of  Alexandria;  of  misman- 
agement by  the  attackers  of  the  Dardanelles;  as  inglorious  by  the 
conquerors  of  Constantinople  ?  But  though  he  should  admit  that 
the  demand  of  the  Danish  navy  was  a  strong  measure,  yet  there 
was  some  extenuation  in  that  case,  which  did  not  apply  to  the  de- 
mand of  the  Turkish  fleet.  He  did  not  mean  to  argue  here  the 
difference  of  the  necessity  in  either  instance.  There  was  this  cir- 
cumstance which  bore  upon  the  case  of  the  Danish  navy,  that  the 
Danish  Government,  contemplating  the  dangers  that  were  gather- 
ing round  it,  had  entertained  the  project  of  reducing  its  navy  by 
sale,  and  he  had  it  upon  authority  to  state,  that  the  Russian  Min- 
ister had  actually  entered  into  a  treaty  for  the  purchase  of  part  of 
the  Danish  navy.  As  to  the  influence  of  national  pride,  there- 
fore, it  could  not  be  very  active,  for  he  could  not  conceive  any 
situation  that  this  country  could  be  placed  in,  in  which  she  could 
entertain  a  proposal  for  the  disposal,  by  sale,  of  any  part  of  the 
British  navy.  This  would  not  certainly  justify  the  demand  of 
the  Danish  fleet;  but  it  certainly  did  strip  the  right  honourable 
gentleman's  speech  of  part  of  its  gorgeous  eloquence.     The  ex- 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  57 

perience  of  the  past  had  enabled  His  Majesty's  Ministers  to  judge 
of  the  conduct  that  would  be  pursued  by  Denmark.  Had  she 
not  received  intimation  of  the  dangers  that  impended  over  her? 
Had  not  the  bulletin,  published  by  Buonaparte  after  the  battle  of 
Friedland,  given  her  notice  of  her  approaching  fate,  when  it 
stated,  "that  the  blockade  of  the  British  islands  would  then  cease 
to  be  a  vain  word."  What  ports  but  those  of  Denmark  could 
this  prospective  threat  apply  to,  for  what  others  were  neutral  ? 
The  conferences,  too,  at  Tilsit,  and  the  immediate  execution  of 
some  of  the  arrangements  entered  into  there,  by  the  restoration 
of  the  Dukes  of  Mecklenburg  and  Oldenburg,  for  whom  the  Em- 
peror of  Russia  had  particularly  interested  himself,  on  the  condi- 
tion of  shutting  their  ports  against  Great  Britain,  showed  the  de- 
signs of  Buonaparte,  and  pointed  to  Denmark  as  the  next  state 
that  would  be  called  upon  to  submit  to  his  laws  of  blockade.  To 
Denmark  alone  this  intimation  of  the  bulletin  referred,  and  ac- 
cordingly she  was  found  shrinking  into  her  shell  as  France  ap- 
proached, and  neglecting  to  make  any  addition  to  her  means  of 
defence.  She  had  declared  the  French  Decree  of  the  21st  No- 
vember innocent,  whilst  she  remonstrated  strongly  against  the 
British  mild  retaliation  in  the  Order  of  the  7th  of  January  as  un- 
just; and  yet  this  was  the  Power  which  they  were  told  was  capa- 
ble of  defending  itself  against  France!  The  proposition  was  not 
maintainable,  and  if  His  Majesty's  Ministers  had  not  acted  upon 
the  impressions  they  received  from  the  experience  of  the  past, 
and  their  knowledge  of  the  state  and  sentiments  of  the  court  of 
Denmark,  they  would  not  have  done  their  duty.  If  they  had  not 
taken  the  very  steps  which  were  now  censured,  the  eloquence  of 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  was  cold  and  dead,  compared 
with  the  thunder  that  would  have  then  rolled  over  their  heads. 
But  these  were  distant  warnings.  Had  not  Denmark  more  im- 
mediate intimation  of  its  danger?  General  Bernadotte,  on  coming 
to  take  the  command  at  Hamburgh,  directed  the  assembled 
burghers  to  prepare  quarters  for  fifteen  thousand  men,  which  he 
represented  as  only  the  advanced  guard  of  a  much  greater  force, 
that  was  to  be  employed  on  an  expedition  which  would  not  re- 
quire him  to  be  long  absent  from  Hamburgh.  Whither  could  this 
expedition  be  directed  but  against  Holstein?  Bernadotte  had  also 
been  charged  with  a  mission  to  the  Crown  Prince  at  Kiel;  and, 
though  he  should  state  as  a  fact,  a  thing  which  he  did  not  know 
upon  official  authority,  that  officer,  he  was  assured,  had  had  an 
interview  with  the  Crown  Prince  at  Kiel,  on  the  night  of  the  21st 
of  July.  He  believed  the  fact,  though  he  could  not  state  it  posi- 
tively, and  he  knew  also,  that  it  was  believed  at  Kiel,  in  Jlolsteiu, 
at  Hamburgh,  and  al  St.  Petersburgh,  at  tin  lime.  Bernadotte, 
too,  had  made  no  secret  of  the  object  of  his  mission,  being  to 
9 


58  EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN. 

procure  the  exclusion  of  the  English  from  the  ports  of  Denmark. 
Was  this  a  state  of  things,  in  which  His  Majesty's  Ministers 
were  to  go  on  confiding  in  the  sincerity  and  means  of  the  Danish 
Government,  till  they  should  be  called  on  for  assistance?  He 
wished  to  know,  why  they  should  have  waited  for  the  Declara- 
tion of  Denmark,  when  fully  apprised  of  the  disposition  of  France 
towards  that  Power,  of  the  inability  of  Russia  to  control  that 
disposition,  and  the  want  of  means,  or  of  inclination,  on  the  part 
of  Denmark,  to  resist  the  force  of  France  ? 

But  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  argued  that  though 
there  had  been  enough  in  the  circumstances  and  conduct  of  Den- 
mark to  excite  suspicion,  or  call  for  measures  of  precaution,  yet 
there  was  not  sufficient  to  justify  the  length  to  which  the  meas- 
ures of  His  Majesty's  Government  had  been  carried.  For  himself, 
he  did  not  know  what  other  measures  could  have  been  resorted  to; 
and  he  would  defy  the  ingenuity  of  the  gentlemen  opposite,  to 
show  what  others  could  have  been  adopted,  that  would  have  in- 
sured the  accomplishment  of  the  object.  It  was  not  necessary  for 
him,  in  this  instance,  to  say  that  the  whole  of  the  force  employed 
on  this  occasion,  had  not  been  provided  for  this  expedition  origi- 
nally. A  very  large  part  of  it  had  been  employed  to  assist  the 
King  of  Sweden,  the  remainder  had  been  provided  on  princi- 
ples of  precaution;  and,  as  the  influx  of  intelligence  demonstrated 
the  critical  nature  of  the  emergency,  or,  as  the  views  of  France 
developed  themselves,  it  became  the  more  necessary  to  employ 
the  whole  upon  this  important  service.  As  to  the  demand  of  the 
fleet,  he  was  at  issue  with  the  right  honourable  gentleman;  but  as 
he  meant  to  object  to  the  production  of  the  papers  he  called  for, 
he  thought  it  right  to  state,  that  the  proposition  intended  to  have 
been  made  in  the  first  instance  to  the  court  of  Denmark,  was  to 
surrender  its  fleet  in  deposit,  to  be  returned  on  the  conclusion  of 
peace.  This  proposition  had  not  been  submitted  to  the  Danish 
Government,  because  the  gentleman  who  was  the  bearer  of  it,  on 
his  arrival  at  Kiel,  felt  confident  that  he  should  see  the  Prince  on 
the  following  morning,  but  found  in  the  morning  that  the  Prince 
had  set  out  for  Copenhagen;  on  following  the  Prince  to  Copenha- 
gen he  found  he  had  returned  to  Kiel.  The  Danish  Minister 
whom  he  met  at  Copenhagen,  had  orders  not  to  treat  upon  the  terms 
he  was  authorized  to  propose:  the  Minister  at  Kiel  could  not  treat 
till  the  return  of  a  courier  from  Copenhagen;  the  Minister  at  Co- 
penhagen could  not  open  a  negotiation  till  the  return  of  a  mes- 
senger from  Kiel.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  impossible 
to  enter  into  any  negotiation  that  could  hold  out  any  prospect  of 
a  speedy  or  satisfactory  result,  and  thus  it  was  that  the  original 
proposition  had  never  been  submitted  to  the  Danish  Government. 
A  sufficient  force  had  been  sent  to  justify  the  court  of  Denmark 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  59 

to  France  in  conceding  to  our  demand,  or,  if  it  did  not  concede, 
to  accomplish  the  object  for  which  it  had  been  despatched. 

As  to  the  violated  dignity  of  the  Danish  nation,  the  very  dis- 
play of  our  force  before  Copenhagen  might  be  considered  a  vio- 
lation of  that  dignity.  If  one  of  our  cruisers  had  searched  a  sin- 
gle Danish  ship,  or  stopped  a  corporal's  guard  going  to  Zealand, 
this  might  also  be  called  an  attack  upon  that  nation;  and  upon  this 
subject  he  should  quote  a  great  authority  upon  the  law  of  nations, 
which  he  held  in  his  hand.  That  great  modern  expositor  of  the 
law  of  nations,  whom  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  in  the  re- 
ligious part  of  his  speech,  seemed  to  consider  as  a  special  instru- 
ment in  the  hands  of  Providence — Buonaparte — who,  in  his  ten- 
der concern  for  the  interests  of  this  country,  always  took  care  to 
give  an  exposition  of  his  sentiments  at  a  time  when  it  would  bear 
on  a  parliamentary  debate — had  given,  in  a  Moniteur  which  ar- 
rived this  very  day,  a  sufficient  proof  of  what  would  have  made 
him  consider  Denmark  as  in  a  state  of  hostility  with  France. 
When  the  Austrian  Minister,  Stahremberg,  was  recalled,  he  was 
particularly  ordered  to  leave  London  by  the  20th,  as  Parliament 
were  to  meet  on  the  21st:  and  a  Moniteur  which  had  arrived  this 
very  day,  had  given  an  exposition  of  Buonaparte's  sentiments 
with  respect  to  neutrals.  In  the  justification  of  the  conduct  of 
France  towards  Portugal,  one  of  Buonaparte's  Ministers  says  in 
his  official  report,  "  If  any  sovereign  in  Europe  should  allow  his 
territory  to  be  violated  by  the  English,  the  act  would  clearly  place 
that  sovereign  in  hostility  with  your  Majesty:  and,  therefore,  if 
the  Portuguese  have  suffered  their  vessels  to  be  violated  by  the 
cruisers  of  that  Power,  they,  too,  were  in  hostility  with  your  Ma- 
jesty." Now,  those  who  thought  so  much  of  the  wounded  pride 
of  Denmark,  should  consider,  that  upon  this  principle,  the  search 
of  the  smallest  vessel,  in  crossing  the  Belt,  would  be  sufficient  to 
place  Denmark  in  a  state  of  war  with  France.  With  a  French 
army  on  the  frontiers  of  llolstein,  and  no  English  fleet  or  force 
off  Copenhagen,  it  would  be  an  idle  waste  of  words,  a  mere 
mockery  of  negotiation,  to  enter  into  any  discussions.  Humanity, 
as  well  as  policy,  required  a  force  large  enough  for  the  ultimate 
accomplishment  of  the  object  under  any  circumstances.  No  man 
could  blame  His  Majesty's  Ministers  for  having  made  the  force 
much  larger  than  was  necessary  for  either  object,  in  order  to  in- 
vite the  surrender  of  the  fleet  which  was  required;  but,  when  no 
proposition  would  be  listened  to,  it  was  satisfactory  that  the  means 
employed  were  sufficient  fur  the  accomplishment  of  the  object 
with  the  least  possible  loss. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  had  said  that,  the  case  could 
only  be  justified  by  necessity;  but  he  was  sure  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  must  carry  his  principle  further,  and  admit,  that  the 


60  EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN. 

measure  ought  not  to  be  carried  beyond  the  necessity  of  the  case. 
He  was,  therefore,  surprised  to  hear  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man say,  at  the  conclusion  of  his  speech,  that  the  measure  ought  to 
have  been  pushed  to  extremity.     By  other  premises  he  might  ar- 
rive at  that  conclusion,  but  certainly  not  from  those  he  had  that 
night  stated.     The  right  honourable  gentleman  had  said,  that  the 
Danish   Government  could    defend  the  islands   against  France, 
though  France  should  be  in  possession  of  Holstein.     But  if  the 
Danish   navy  was  not  prepared  against  England,  neither  could  it 
be  prepared  against  France.     However,  the  fact  was,  and  it  was 
notorious,  that  after  Zealand  had  surrendered,  many  Danish  troops 
had  succeeded  in  getting  into  that  island,  notwithstanding  the  ju- 
dicious distribution  of  the  British  naval  force  in  the  Belts,  by  the 
very  able  officer  who  commanded  in  that  quarter.     On  the  au- 
thority of  his  predecessor  he  could  state,  that  the  pressure  in  Hol- 
stein was  considered  as  likely  to  lead  to  the  surrender  of  Zealand. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman  had  asked,  why  they  had  not  put 
their  questions  directly  to  Russia,  respecting  her  conduct?    He 
would  answer,  that  they  had  flattered  themselves,  that  by  pur- 
suing a  course  rather  conciliatory,  they  might  bring  back  Rus- 
sia to  the  line  of  her  true  policy,  and,  therefore,  they  abstained 
from  any  conduct  that  might  drive  her  irrecoverably  into  the 
arms  of  France.    But  the  right  honourable  gentleman  asked  why, 
if  Russia  were  a  party  against  us,  we  ought  not  to  have  selected 
Russia  for  our  attack  ?   To  this  question,  which  had  been  so  often 
put,  the  answer  was  so  obvious,  that  he  was  surprised  to  hear  it 
repeated.     If  they  had  had  certain  information  of  the  hostile  in- 
tentions of  Russia,  and  the  object  which  they  had  in  view  were 
not  attainable  by  any  other  means,  he  agreed  that  Russia  should 
have  been  attacked.     It  had  been  shown,  that  the  object  sought 
from  Denmark  could  not  have  been  obtained  without  a  prompt 
and  peremptory  force,  and  that  that  object  was  of  the  highest  mo- 
ment to  the  security  of  this  country.     An  attack  upon  Cronstadt 
might  have  been  productive  of  glory,  but  would  not  have  dimin- 
ished the  maritime  means  that  could  be  employed  against  us,  and 
which  constituted  our  danger.     Would  it  then  have  been  wise,  or 
politic,  or  safe,  to  have  passed  the  harbour  of  Copenhagen,  which 
contained  twenty  sail  of  the  line,  that  would  instantly  become 
the  instruments  of  the  enemy's  vengeance  against  us,  in  order  to 
execute  a  barren  bravado  against  Cronstadt,  where  we  could  ob- 
tain but  three  or  four  rotten  hulks?  It  was  true,  he  admitted,  that 
Russian  ships  of  the  line  had   passed  through  our  fleets,  and  we 
had  the  choice  of  attacking  them;  but,  aware  of  the  circumstances 
by  which  the  Emperor  had  been  rendered  the  friend  of  France, 
of  the  disgusting  humiliations  to  which  he  had  been  subjected  at 
the  conferences  of  Tilsit,  and  hoping  that  his  magnanimous  spirit 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  61 

might  still  be  driven  to  resistance  and  aggression,  His  Majesty's 
Ministers  had  still  cherished  the  hope  that  the  Emperor  Alexander 
would  retrace  his  steps,  not  for  the  purpose  of  a  renewal  of  war 
with  France — God  forbid ! — but  in  order  to  consult  the  true  inter- 
ests of  his  empire.  In  the  present  circumstances  of  the  world,  a 
war  with  France  would  be  hopeless;  but  it  was  not  hopeless  that 
the  spirit  and  disposition  of  his  people  might  bring  him  back  to 
better  councils.  They  had  strong  grounds  to  know  that  'the  in- 
tentions of  Russia  were  hostile,  but,  in  the  most  inauspicious  mo- 
ment, they  were  not  without  expectations  of  altering  them. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  had  contended  that  this  pros- 
pect was  not  improved  by  calling  upon  Russia  to  sanction  the  busi- 
ness of  Copenhagen;  but  it  was  somewhat  strange,  that  such  an 
opinion  should  be  entertained  by  those  who  held  that  it  was  of  no 
consequence  whether  a  mediator  was  friendly  or  not.  He  could 
assure  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  that  the  note  of  Baron 
Budberg,  which  he  imputed  to  some  French  intelligence  respect- 
ing the  transactions  at  Copenhagen,  was  not  produced  by  any 
such  cause.  The  business  at  Copenhagen  had  been  known  at  St. 
Petersburgh  on  the  22d  July,  a  week  before  that  note  was  writ- 
ten; and  if  gentlemen  reflected  that  General  Savary  dictated  to 
the  Emperor  of  Russia  in  his  capital,  they  might  easily  account 
for  the  asperity  of  any  note  which  might  have  been  submitted  to 
his  inspection.  All  accounts  agreed  in  representing,  that  the  mind 
of  the  court  of  Russia  was  alienated  from  this  country,  and  one 
might  easily  conceive  a  reason  for  that  alienation.  The  expecta- 
tion of  assistance  from  this  country,  no  matter  whether  well  or 
ill  founded,  was  the  cause,  not  of  the  peace  of  Tilsit,-but  of  the 
temper  in  which  it  was  conducted,  when  the  military  disasters 
had  rendered  that  peace  necessary.  Out  of  twenty  despatches  re- 
ceived from  our  Ambassador  with  the  Emperor,  there  was  not  one 
in  which  he  did  not  say,  "  Send  assistance,  or  Russia  will  fail 
you;  make  a  diversion,  which  will  take  part  of  the  weight  of  war 
off  Russia,  or  she  will  withdraw  from  it." 

As  to  the  charge,  that  the  expedition  to  Copenhagen  was  the 
cause  of  the  hostility  of  Russia,  he  contended,  on  the  authority  of 
our  Ambassador  at  Petersburgh,  that  the  fact  was  not  so;  but  he 
could  also  refer  to  the  authority  of  another  noble  person,  who  had 
an  ample  opportunity  of  knowing  the  truth  of  what  he  here  ad- 
vanced, and  he  should  do  this  with  the  more  satisfaction,  because 
of  some  rumours  he  had  heard,  that  that  noble  person  (Lord 
Hutchinson)  had  declared  an  opinion  since  his  return  to  this  coun- 
try, that  the  Expedition  to  Copenhagen  was  the  cause  of  the  hos- 
tility of  Russia.  The  right  honourable  secretary  here  read  an  ex- 
tract from  a  despatch  from  Lord  Hutchinson,  dated  Memel,  20th 
of  July,  and  stating  that  there  were  many  secret  articles  in  the 

G 


62  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

treaty  of  Tilsit;  that  the  predominant  party  in  the  Russian  court 
was  French,  but  that  the  rational  part  of  the  nation  was  against  a 
war  with  England;  and  it  was  probable  the  secret  articles  to  Tur- 
key, and  to  the  shutting  of  the  Russian  ports  against  England,  in 
the  event  of  the  failure  of  a  negotiation  within  a  limited  time. 
This  extract  would  be  sufficient  to  do  away  any  impression  that 
the  rumours  to  which  he  alluded  might  have  made,  as  if  the  noble 
writer  of  the  despatch  really  attributed  the  hostility  of  Russia  to 
the  business  at  Copenhagen.     Hoping   for  a  change  of  circum- 
stances, the)''  had  thought  it  better  to  afford  to  the  Russian  Gov- 
ernment an  opportunity  of  releasing  itself  from  the  embarrassing 
engagements   into  which  it  had  unfortunately  entered  at  Tilsit; 
and  when  he  considered  the  nature  of  the  policy  and  practice  of 
that  court,  wrhen  he  contemplated  the  anxiety  which  it  had  always 
manifested  to  maintain  its  rank  as  Protector  of  the  North  of  Eu- 
rope, and  the  tenacity  with  which  it  still  fondly  wished  to  cling 
to  that  character,  he  could  not  suppose  a  case  in  which  every  feel- 
ing of  its  pride  and  ambition  could  be  so  completely  gratified  as 
in  the  submission  of  our  differences  with  Denmark  to  the  media- 
tion of  Russia  as  arbitress  of  the  North.     She  could  thus  say  to 
herself,  the  sea  of  which  I  am  protectress  has  been  violated;  but 
those  who  have  violated  it  are  placed  in  my  hands,  subject  to  my 
mediation.     This  was  the  light  in  which  he  was  confident  the  ap- 
plication to  Russia  to  mediate,  would  be  considered  by  every  per- 
son who  was  a  friend  to  the  true  interests  of  Russia,  and  it  was 
so  considered,  until  the  overbearing  influence  of  General  Savary 
altered  the  tone  of  the  Russian  Cabinet.     But  it  had  been  said, 
why  not  attack  Cronstadt,  and  insult  the  Emperor  in  his  own  cap- 
ital ?  There  was  a  great  party,  or  rather  the  majority  of  the  bet- 
termost  people  in  Russia,  who  were  anxious  for  British  connexion; 
but  whatever  might  be  the  partialities  of  such  persons,  they  must 
all  feel  for  the  honour  and  glory  of  their  country,  and,  therefore, 
it  could  not  be  desirable  to  destroy,  by  an  unprofitable  attack  upon 
the  national  feelings,  the  nascent  popularity  of  this  country.     We 
had  the  right,  unquestionably;  but  it  was  a  different  question, 
whether,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  ought  to  exer- 
cise it:  besides,  the  object  was  not  wTorth  the  cost  and  pain  of  the 
undertaking,  and  the  execution  of  it  would   have  infallibly  dis- 
gusted those  wrho  would  be  likely  to  bring  back  Russia  to  her  real 
interests.     Those  gentlemen  who  admitted  that  a  knowledge  of 
the  designs  of  France,  and  of  the  weakness  of  Denmark,  would 
justify  the  expedition,  seemed  to  forget  the  inadmission,  and  to 
urge  the  broad  principles  applicable  to  a  different  state  of  things. 
It  was  undoubtedly  just,  that  if  there  were  a  community  of  states 
in  Europe,  the  weaker  states  ought  to  be  as  secure  from  aggression, 
as  the  more  powerful  ones.     This  was  a  principle  which  had 


EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN.  63 

never  been  denied.  But  gentlemen  wrongly  applied  to  the  exist- 
ing state  of  Europe  this  principle,  which  properly  belonged  to 
that  state  of  Europe,  in  which  the  rights  of  all  were  secured  by 
the  sanctity  of  public  law;  and  even  the  weakest  were  preserved 
from  aggression  or  insult — if  not  by  immediate  protection,  at  least, 
by  conflicting  interests. 

In  the  enthusiasm  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  morality, 
it  was  rather  strange,  that  he  should  have  forgotten  the  moralities 
of  the  French  revolution.  In  the  present  state  of  the.  world, 
whatever  miseries  might  be  produced,  whatever  calamities  en- 
dured, whatever  atrocities  committed,  by  the  permission  of  that 
Providence  in  whom  we  live,  breathe,  and  have  our  being,  the 
whole  responsibility  must  rest  upon  him,  who  is  the  sole  author 
of  them.  There  was  not  now  a  community  of  states  in  Europe, 
connected  by  the  solemnity  and  sanction  of  public  law,  protect- 
ing and  protected  by  the  influence  of  the  principles  of  equal 
justice,  and  a  mutual  sense  of  reciprocal  rights;  there  was  but  one 
devouring  state,  that  swallowed  up  every  one  that  it  could  bring 
within  its  grasp,  and  that,  so  far  from  respecting  the  rights  and 
independence  of  other  nations,  reduced  all  to  indiscriminate  sub- 
jection, rendering  them  alike  subservient  to  the  designs  of  its 
Ruler  against  this  country.  Buonaparte  now  dictated  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  continent,  and  had  erased  every  vestige  of  public 
law  in  Europe.  He  could  not  but  be  surprised  then,  to  find  gen- 
tleman censuring  a  measure,  which  had  proved  the  salvation  of 
the  country,  and  comparing  it  with  antiquated  crimes  in  which 
we  had  no  share,  and  for  which  we  had  incurred  no  responsi- 
bility. 

Was  it  to  be  contended,  that,  in  a  moment  of  imminent  danger, 
we  should  have  abstained  from  that  course  which  prudence  and 
policy  dictated,  in  order  to  meet  and  avert  those  calamities  that 
threatened  our  security  and  existence,  because  if  we  sunk  under 
the  pressure,  we  should  have  the  consolation  of  having  the  au- 
thority of  Puffendorf  to  plead?  But  the  conduct  that  had  been 
adopted  on  this  occasion,  was  not  without  precedent  or  example. 
In  the  year  1801,  the  island  of  Madeira  had  been  taken  possession 
of,  by  our  Government,  for  fear  it  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
French.  Yet  Portugal  was  a  neutral  nation,  and  had  always,  by 
way  ui'  pre-eminence,  been  styled  the  old  and  ancient  ally  of 
England.  The  capture  of  Madeira  had  been  effected  without  any 
previous  communication  to  the  Court  of  Lisbon.  Undoubtedly, 
instructions  had  been  senl  to  our  Minister  at  the  Court  of  Lisbon, 
to  requesl  thai  an  order  should  be  sent  to  the  Governor  to  surren- 
der the  island  in  good  will.  The  instructions  arrived  at  Lisbon 
about  the  time  thai  the  troops  arrived  at  Madeira,  and  the  island 
was,  consequently,  taken  by  force,  before  any  orders  could  have 


64  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

been  sent  out  to  surrender  it.  Where  had  Portugal,  at  that  time, 
a  fleet  that  could  convey  troops  for  the  invasion  of  these  islands, 
or  if  she  had  that  fleet,  what  expedition  could  be  sent  by  her  that 
would  not  be  defeated  by  the  valour  and  intrepidity  of  our  sea- 
men ?  He  did  not  mean  to  condemn  the  capture  of  that  island, 
because  he  knew  that  it  might  be,  and  he  had  no  doubt  that  it 
was,  justifiable  upon  the  grounds  of  probable  necessity;  he  ad- 
verted to  the  transaction  only  as  a  defence  against  the  generality 
of  the  charge.  But  this  was  not  the  only  instance  in  which  such 
conduct  had  been  practised  to  neutral  states,  in  which  it  had  been 
used  towards  neutral  and  friendly  Powers;  nay,  even  there  was  an 
instance  in  which  it  had  been  adopted  by  morality  itself  towards 
a  friendly  state.  In  the  year  1806,  there  had  been  reports  of  its 
being  the  intention  of  the  French  Government  to  invade  Portu- 
gal. He  had  himself  no  doubt  of  the  perpetual  intention  of  the 
French  Government  to  prosecute  that  purpose,  and  he  did  not 
question  that  the  design  might  have  been  in  contemplation  at  that 
time;  but  it  did  not  appear  that  any  army  was  assembled  for  the 
purpose  at  Bayonne.  He  admired  the  conduct  which  had  been 
adopted  by  the  late  Ministers  on  the  occasion,  he  applauded  their 
spirit,  and  he  felt  gratitude  for  the  manner  in  which  their  proceed- 
ing enabled  him  to  meet  the  general  question  on  this  charge. 
[Here  the  right  honourable  Secretary  read  an  extract  from  the 
Instructions  given  by  the  late  Board  of  Admiralty  to  Elarl  St. 
Vincent,  when  despatched  to  Lisbon.  The  Instructions  directed 
the  noble  Admiral's  attention  to  three  objects;  first,  if  the  Por- 
tuguese Government  should,  by  itself,  or  in  conjunction  with 
Spain,  be  disposed  to  defend  the  country  against  the  French,  to 
promise  all  the  assistance  that  Great  Britain  could  afford,  and  the 
presence  of  a  respectable  naval  force  in  the  Tagus  would  contrib- 
ute to  that  object;  secondly,  if  that  should  not  be  the  determina- 
tion of  the  Court,  and  the  Government  should  embrace  the  reso- 
lution of  emigrating  to  the  Brazils,  as  it  had  once  proposed  during 
the  late  war,  to  offer  them  the  assistance  of  a  British  naval  force, 
under  the  protection  of  which  alone,  that  determination  could  be 
carried  into  effect;  and,  lastly,  if  there  should  not  be  vigour  enough 
in  the  Government  to  adopt  either  of  these  resolutions,  he  was  to 
prevent,  if  possible,  the  port  of  Lisbon  from  falling  into  the  hands 
of  the  French,  and,  at  all  events,  the  Portuguese  navy  was  to  be  se- 
cured; every  vessel  of  which,  that  was  serviceable,  was  to  be 
brought  off,  together  with  the  ships,  goods,  and  persons  of  the 
British  factory  at  Lisbon,  and  also  the  court,  if  it  should  be  so 
disposed:  for  the  execution  of  these  instructions,  the  troops  that 
were  then  embarking  were  to  be  sent  to  him  with  all  convenient 
expedition;  but  he  was  not  to  give  any  intimation  of  the  circum- 
stance to  the  Portuguese  Government,  nor  to  hold  any  language 


EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN.  °5 

that  might  excite  the  suspicion  of  the  French  Minister,  or  lead  to 
any  measures  of  precaution;  and,  as  it  might  be  necessary  to  em- 
ploy the  troops  immediately  on  their  arrival,  in  order  to  secure  a 
strong  position,  he  was  to  have  the  marines  and  boats  of  the  fleet 
constantly  in  readiness  for  that  service.]  These  instructions  were 
clear  in  their  tenor,  precise  in  their  object,  and  conclusive  as  to 
the  question  then  under  consideration.  If  any  gentleman  wished 
for  the  document,  it  would  be  laid  on  the  table,  and  the  only  shy- 
ness that  had  been  felt  in  producing  it  before  was,  that  it  would 
place  him  and  his  colleagues  in  the  situation  of  convicted  plagiar- 
ists. (Hear,  hear!)  These  were  the  instructions  that  had  been 
given  by  morality  itself,  and  the  only  difference  between  them 
and  the  instructions  that  had  been  given  by  the  present  Govern- 
ment was,  that  the  latter  did  not  desire  that  the  army  should  be 
introduced  in  disguise. 

But  there  might  yet  be  one  qualification  that  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  would  apply  to  Denmark,  namely,  that  her  con- 
duct, when  she  was  relatively  strong  to  weaker  neutral  states,  did 
not  merit  such  a  measure  against  her.  What  had  that  conduct 
been?  When,  in  1S01,  the  maritime  confederacy  held  out  a  pros- 
pect that  this  country  would  not  be  able  to  protect  its  allies,  Den- 
mark treated  the  unprotected  neutral  state  of  Hamburgh  with  the 
most  violent  oppression,  and  did  so  for  the  purpose  of  excluding 
the  English  from  that  port.  The  same  conduct  had  been  pursued 
towards  Ratzburg.  This  conduct  proved  that  Denmark  had  no 
very  strong  claims  for  forbearance.  But  it  was  rather  strange,  that 
those  gentlemen  who  blamed  Government  for  not  having  accept- 
ed the  mediation  of  Russia,  should  now  impute  it  as  the  ground 
of  charge  that  they  had  not  passed  by  Copenhagen  in  order  to  at- 
tack Cronstadt.  We  had  a  right  to  attack  Russia,  but  had  we  no 
interest  in  forbearing  to  exercise  that  right?  There  were,  at  the 
time,  in  the  ports  of  Russia,  five  hundred  British  ships,  and  six 
thousand  British  seamen;  and  gentlemen  would  perceive,  that 
these  formed  too  important  an  object  to  be  hazarded  for  the  sake 
of  the  few  hulks  that  might  be  obtained  at  Cronstadt:  besides,  the 
fleet  which  Russia  had  in  the  Mediterranean  was  a  security  to  us 
for  her  good  behaviour.  And  here  he  would  take  occasion  to  con- 
tradict a  misrepresentation  that  had  taken  place  upon  the  subject 
of  this  fleet.  The  Russian  squadron  did  not  enter  the  Tagus  by 
order  from  the  Government,  but  from  sheer  distress,  and  because 
all  the  ports  of  the  enemy  were  so  closely  blockaded  by  our 
squadrons,  that  they  could  not  enter  any  one  of  them.  This 
squadron  was  first  directed  to  touch  at  a  British  port,  and  even 
the  Russian  Ambassador  was  so  deceived  with  respect  to  it,  that 
he  had  kept  here  a  frigate  with  specie  on  board,  for  the  payment 
10  G* 


66  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

of  that  very  fleet.  But,  if  that  fleet  had  been  attacked,  what  an 
argument  might  yet  be  drawn  against  the  precipitancy  of  such  a 
measure,  from  the  circumstance  of  the  squadron  having  been  di- 
rected to  touch  at  a  British  port,  and  the  Russian  Ambassador 
having  detained  the  frigate  with  the  specie  for  the  pay  of  the 
crews ! 

He  had  intentionally  avoided  referring  to  any  thing  in  this  de- 
bate but  what  was  notorious;  and  if  they  were  to  ask  why  they 
had  rested  their  defence  upon  precise  information,  when  the  events 
and  facts  that  had  since  taken  place,  had  amply  justified  their 
measure,  he  would  answer,  that  they  had  stated  that  precise 
ground  because  it  was  true,  and  not  because  they  thought  it  ne- 
cessary to  their  justification  in  judging  of  the  case  before  the 
House.  If  any  more  evidence  should  be  thought  necessary,  let 
them  be  condemned,  for  nothing  should  ever  extort  from  them 
the  source  whence  they  had  derived  their  information.  If  gen- 
tlemen should  say,  that  this  course  was  contrary  to  the  practice 
of  Parliament,  he  would  go  the  Journals,  to  prove  that  it  was  not 
out  of  the  usual  course  of  parliamentary  proceedings.  Having 
rescued  the  country  from  a  great  and  imminent  danger,  he  would 
trust  to  the  case  as  it  stood,  and  he  had  no  doubt  but  that  the  con- 
duct of  Ministers  would  be  judged  deserving  of  approbation. 
The  House  might  judge  of  the  extent  of  the  service  performed 
by  contemplating  the  distribution  of  our  naval  force,  that  might 
be  necessary  if  the  Danish  fleet  were  not  now  in  our  possession. 

As  to  what  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  said  of  the  in- 
crease of  the  danger  of  Sweden  by  the  Expedition,  he  could  as- 
sure him,  that  that  danger  was  greatly  diminished  by  that  event, 
and  so  the  Government  of  Sweden  felt  it.  As  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  had  alluded  to  a  communication  made  by  him  to 
Mr.  Rist,  the  Danish  charge  d'affaires,  he  would  briefly  state  the 
fact  to  the  House.  He  had  been  commanded  by  His  Majesty, 
after  the  Danish  fleet  had  been  surrendered,  to  make  an  official 
communication  to  that  gentleman,  desiring  that  he  might  procure 
powers  from  the  Crown  Prince  to  negotiate  an  accommodation, 
or  to  procure  passports  for  a  Minister  to  go  to  Keil  for  that  pur- 
pose. This  was  all  the  official  communication;  he  had,  however, 
thought  it  right  to  inform  Mr.  Rist  of  the  terms  upon  which  the 
accommodation  might  be  effected.  He  had  mentioned  then  the 
period  of  three  years,  as  that  which  might,  after  the  conclusion 
of  peace,  enable  us  to  form  a  judgment  of  the  stability  of  the 
peace;  and  certainly,  those  who  bad  witnessed  the  last  peace  must 
be  sensible,  that  the  period  was  not  too  long;  for  in  eighteen 
months  after  that  peace,  we  were  as  much  at  war  as  before.  Con- 
sidering that  we  had  gained  possession  of  the  fleet  by  force,  he 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  "< 

did  not  think  the  stipulation  of  such  a  term  any  insult,  and  he 
had  proposed  either  to  keep  the  fleet  in  deposit,  or  to  take  it  in 
purchase.  When  he  communicated  this  fact  to  the  House,  he 
thought  it  necessary  to  state  why  he  did  not  produce  the  papers. 
As  all  negotiations  were  resumed  on  the  terms  upon  which  they 
had  been  last  broken  off,  and  though  he  and  his  colleagues  had 
thought  it  right  to  make  such  offers  in  that  instance,  it  would  not 
follow  that  they  should  be  disposed  to  grant  the  same  conditions 
at  a  future  period.  In  the  hope  of  some  such  accommodation, 
His  Majesty  had  even  been  induced  to  delay  directing  the  con- 
demnation of  the  Danish  shipping,  as  well  as  his  declaration  of 
war.  He  had  no  hesitation  to  add,  that  every  stipulation  had 
been  required  that  could  be  necessary  for  the  security  of  the 
Swedish  territory.  But  now  that  war  had  taken  place,  it  could 
not  be  contended  that  the  capture  of  the  Danish  Navy,  did  not, 
pro  tanto,  diminish  the  means  of  the  enemy,  whilst  it  added  to 
our  means  of  security.  Buonaparte  well  knew,  that  the  maritime 
power  of  Great  Britain  was  the  only  impediment  to  his  universal 
aggrandizement.  He  would  not  cease,  therefore,  to  exhaust  all 
the  means  he  possessed  to  accomplish  the  grand  object  of  his  am- 
bition. The  trial  he  would  make;  and  it  was  only  by  making  it, 
and  its  failure,  that  he  was  to  be  convinced  of  the  inefficiency  and 
fruitlessness  of  all  his  designs.  He  would  destroy  all  commerce 
in  order  to  injure  this  country,  which  he  identified  with  it: 

"Cedet  et  ipse  mari  vector:  nee  nautica  pinus 
Mutabit  merces." — 

But  though  he  should  direct  the  whole  accumulated  force  of  his 
vast  territories  to  this  purpose,  he  would  find  all  his  projects  frus- 
trated, until  he  could  make  all  nations  independent  of  commerce, 
in  consequence  of  their  own  productions: 

"  Omnis  feret  omnia  tellus." 

By  the  expedition  to  Copenhagen,  the  means  of  the  enemy  had 
been  reduced,  and  the  security  of  the  country  augmented.  Those 
who  thought  the  policy  of  that  measure  weak,  and  its  execution 
unjust,  would  certainly  vote  against  him.  But  he  could  not  con- 
sider it  a  manly  way  to  take  the  division  upon  the  motion  for  pa- 
pers, and  not  on  the  merits  of  the  question,  merely  because  some 
few  would  vote  for  the  papers,  who  would  not  support  a  motion 
for  censure.  Conscious  of  the  principles  upon  which  he  and  his 
colleagues  had  acted,  and  of  the  advantages  resulting  to  the  coun- 
try therefrom,  trusting  to  the  justice  and  the  good  sense  of  the 
House,  for  a  confirmation  of  the  universal  sentiment  of  the  coun- 
try with  regard  to  the  conduct  of  His  Majesty's  Ministers  upon 
the  present  transaction,  he  should  submit  to  its  decision,  and  meet 
the  motion  with  a  direct  negative. 


GS  EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN. 

Mr.  Wyndham  supported  the  motion  of  Mr.  Ponsonby;  and  after  a  very 
lengthened  discussion,  the  House  divided  at  half-past  five  on  Thursday  morning — 
For  Mr.  Ponsonby's  motion        ....         108 
Against  it 253 

Majority        -        -        145 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

FEBRUARY  25th,  1808. 

Mr.  Sheridan  concluded  a  speech,  possessing  the  usual  characteristics  of  his 
style  of  speaking — great  eloquence  and  great  humour — by  moving  the  follow- 
ing resolutions: — 

1.  "  That  an  humble  Address  be  presented  to  His  Majesty,  that  he  will  be 
graciously  pleased  to  give  directions  that  there  be  laid  before  this  House,  as  far 
as  the  same  can  be  done  without  prejudice  to  the  public  service,  copies  or  ex- 
tracts of  any  correspondence  which  passed  between  His  Majesty's  Ministers  and 
the  Danish  Charge  d'Alfaires,  or  his  Secretary,  resident  at  the  Court  of  Lon- 
don, from  the  date  of  the  capitulation  of  Copenhagen,  to  their  departure,  to- 
gether with  the  minutes  of  any  verbal  communications  between  the  same. 

2.  "Copies  or  extracts  of  all  correspondence  which  passed,  after  the  capitu- 
lation of  Copenhagen,  between  His  Majesty's  Ministers  and  the  Court  of  Stock- 
holm, relative  to  the  retaining  possession  of  the  Island  of  Zealand  by  a  Swedish 
army,  or  in  concert  with  His  Majesty's  forces;  and  also  copies  of  any  corres- 
pondence which  may  have  passed  between  the  Courts  of  Copenhagen  and 
Stockholm  relating  to  the  same,  and  communicated  to  His  Majesty's  Minister 
residing  at  the  Court  of  Stockholm." 


Mr.  Secretary  Canning  was  not  ashamed  to  confess,  that  he 
at  all  times  felt  considerable  difficulty  in  disagreeing  from  his  right 
honourable  friend  (Mr.  Sheridan);  and  that  in  this  instance,  his 
difficulty  was  much  increased,  not  by  the  line  of  argument  adopt- 
ed by  his  right  honourable  friend,  but  by  the  humour  with  which 
he  had  treated  subjects  stated  to  be  atrocious,  and  the  gravity 
with  which  he  had  dwelt  upon  things  trifling  and  unimportant. 
His  right  honourable  friend  had  set  out  with  a  discussion  of  the 
particular  benefits  of  the  British  Constitution,  which  he  contrast- 
ed with  the  practice  of  despotic  governments.  But  he  had  pushed 
this  contrast  to  a  greater  extent  than  any  writer  or  speaker  with 
whom  he  was  acquainted.  His  right  honourable  friend  had  said, 
that  His  Majesty's  Ministers  were  preserving  the  gloom  of  des- 
potism upon  every  transaction,  upon  which  they  did  not,  shortly 
after  the  transaction  took  place,  or  whilst  the  consequences  were 
yet  flowing  from  it,  give  the  fullest  information  to  the  House,  and 
through  that  House  to  the  public,  and  through  the  public  to  the 
enemy,  by  which  the  enemy  might  be  enabled  to  defeat  the  ob- 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  69 

jects  of  them.  He  had  always  thought  that  the  Constitution  had 
solved  that  problem  which  his  right  honourable  friend  seemed  to 
think  insoluble,  by  enabling  that  House  to  steer  between  difficul- 
ties, and  by  uniting  the  promptness  of  the  executive  with  the 
salutary  corrective  of  its  popular  branch.  But  the  extremity  to 
which  his  right  honourable  friend  had  pushed  his  proposition  was 
not  to  be  maintained  in  argument  or  in  fact,  and  the  former  of  his 
motions  allowed  the  principle  which  the  whole  tenor  of  his 
speech  went  to  invalidate.  His  right  honourable  friend  had  com- 
plained of  the  sparingness  with  which  His  Majesty's  Ministers 
granted  papers;  but  he  was  sure  his  right  honourable  friend  must 
be  convinced  that  papers  had  been  laid  upon  the  table  this  session 
in  greater  masses  than  upon  any  former  occasion.  It  began  to  be 
the  feeling  of  the  House,  that  he  and  his  colleagues  had  granted 
too  many  papers,  and  that  the  few  which  remained  in  the  public 
offices  should  be  retained  there,  if  not  for  the  guidance  of  future 
ministers,  at  least  for  the  service  of  future  oppositions.  His  right 
honourable  friend  had  asserted,  that  because  only  extracts  had 
been  laid  before  the  House,  they  were  not  entitled  to  credit;  and 
that  the  remainder  of  the  documents,  if  produced,  would  contradict 
the  tenor  of  the  parts  given  to  the  public;  as  well  as  that,  because 
chasms  existed  in  the  chain  of  papers,  those  which  were  forth- 
coming; were  not  to  be  credited.  The  instance  which  his  risrht 
honourable  friend  had  selected  to  prove  a  deception  in  the  case  of 
the  three  despatches  from  Lord  G.  L.  Gower,  and  upon  which  he 
dwelt  with  so  much  earnestness,  as  if  they  might  have  been  written 
at  intervals  of  some  weeks,  was  rather  an  unfortunate  one  for  his 
argument;  because  he  had  antecedently  proved  in  his  speech  that 
they  must  all  have  been  written  between  the  30th  of  August  and 
the  2d  of  September.  The  clerical  error  of  the  copying  clerk, 
in  dating  one  of  these  despatches  the  2d  instead  of  the  1st  of 
September,  was  the  ground  upon  which  his  right  honourable 
friend  built  his  argument,  to  prove  the  deception  which  he  im- 
puted to  His  Majesty's  Ministers. 

But  in  contending  that  these  despatches  were  framed  with  a 
view  to  justify  His  Majesty's  Declaration  of  December  19th, 
which  was  issued  in  answer  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia's  Declara- 
tion of  October  2Gth,  which  had  been  received  in  this  country 
on  the  3d  of  December,  his  right  honourable  friend  gave  credit 
to  him  and  his  colleagues  for  a  portion  of  political  sagacity  which 
he  was  not,  on  other  occasions,  disposed  to  allow  them.  But  as 
the  observation  had  been  applied  not  only  to  the  despatches  from 
Lord  G.  L.  Gower,  but  to  his  answer  to  these  despatches,  dated 
September  17th,  his  right  honourable  friend  cut  him  short  a  fort- 
night of  the  allowance  of  political  sagacity.  The  view  which  his 
right  honourable  friend  had  taken  of  the  statement  in  Lord  G.  L. 


70  EXPEDITION  TO   COPENHAGEN. 

Gower's  despatch,  relative  to  the  amicable  tone  assumed  by  Gen- 
eral Budberg,  was  not  maintainable  in  argument,  or  by  the  fact. 
Did  his  right  honourable  friend  mean  to  say  that  General  Bud- 
berg, at  the  time  of  adopting  that  tone,  was  not  acquainted  with 
the  transactions  at  Copenhagen?  If  he  did,  he  was  mistaken; 
because  these  transactions  had  been  known  at  St.  Petersburg, 
either  on,  or  shortly  after,  the  20th  of  August.  If  that  were  so, 
he  would  ask  his  right  honourable  friend  whether,  under  such 
circumstances,  he  would  not  think  it  proper  to  take  advantage  of 
such  a  disposition,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  preserve  the  relations 
of  amity  and  alliance  which  had  previously  subsisted  between 
the  two  countries?  The  note  demanding  an  explanation  of  the 
attack  upon  Copenhagen,  had  been  communicated  under  the  in- 
fluence of  a  Power  which  had  since  acquired  and  exerted  an  as- 
cendency in  the  Russian  councils.  Though  the  depatches  com- 
municating this  note  had  been  received  with  the  other,  they  did 
not  seem  to  His  Majesty's  Ministers  sufficient  to  alter  the  view 
which  they  had  of  turning  to  advantage,  if  possible,  the  friendly 
disposition  which  had  appeared  on  the  part  of  Russia.  If  this  had 
been  the  use  which  his  right  honourable  friend  made  of  the  papers 
produced  at  the  desire  of  his  own  friend,  what  credit  would  he 
have  given  to  the  despatches  if  they  had  been  voluntarily  laid  upon 
the  table  by  His  Majesty's  Ministers?  Would  he  not  have  said, 
that  Ministers  had  produced  them  in  order  to  make  out  their  own 
case?  But  he  should  not  then  enter  into  the  general  question, 
until  it  should  be  regularly  brought  before  the  House,  by  the  mo- 
tion of  the  learned  gentleman  on  Wednesday. 

If  his  right  honourable  friend  was  prepared  to  contend  that  the 
question  ought  to  be  answered  because  it  was  put;  or  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  daily  practice  of  that  House,  it  ought  to  be  answered 
without  any  reference  whatever  to  any  particular  course  to  be 
grounded  upon  it;  he  was  of  opinion  that  it  would  require  some- 
what more  than  the  ingenuity  of  his  right  honourable  friend  to  es- 
tablish that  point.  If  he  understood  his  right  honourable  friend 
right,  he  had  adverted  to  certain  misconstructions  which  had  been 
put  upon  what  had  fallen  from  him  on  a  former  occasion,  as  if  he 
had  made  statements  from  documents  in  order  to  misrepresent  the 
general  tenor  of  their  contents.  Upon  this  particular  point  he 
should  observe,  that  if  other  reasons  did  not  interfere  with  the 
production  of  these  documents,  he  could,  for  his  part,  have  no  ob- 
jection to  produce  them;  and,  on  this  occasion,  he  trusted  he 
should  meet  with  the  indulgence  of  the  House,  in  adding  a  few 
words  upon  a  subject  so  immediately  personal  to  himself.  If  he 
were  to  look  to  himself  alone,  he  should  have  no  difficulty  in  pro- 
ducing the  papers,  which  would  take  away  all  misconstructions 
upon  the  subject,  and  leave  the  learned  gentleman,  when  he  came 


EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN.  71 

to  bring  forward  his  motion,  to  discuss  it  upon  the  mere  naked 
principle.  His  right  honourable  friend  had  mis-stated  the  view 
in  which  he  had  used  one  of  those  papers  which  he  had  read. 
He  had  stated,  that  he  (Mr.  Canning)  from  Lord  Howick's  des- 
patch, had  imputed  that  the  Danish  Court  was  in  collusion  with 
France;  but  this  was  a  mistake:  he  had  only  stated,  that  from  all 
the  circumstances  of  Denmark's  having  retreated  as  the  French 
advanced  towards  Holstein,  there  was  reason  to  apprehend,  if  they 
got  possession  of  Holstein,  Denmark  might  dread  their  proceed- 
ing to  do  the  same  by  Zealand,  and  that  might  be  a  means  of 
drawing  the  Danish  fleet  into  the  hands  of  France;  and  he  thought 
the  noble  lord  had  good  cause  for  fearing  that  might  be  the  case. 

His  right  honourable  friend,  in  one  part  of  his  speech,  admit- 
ted, and,  in  the  wording  of  his  motion,  had  more  strongly  con- 
firmed the  admission,  that  it  must  be  left  to  His  Majesty's  Minis- 
ters to  say  what  particular  papers  ought  to  be  laid  before  the 
House,  and  what  would  be  inconvenient  or  dangerous  so  to  do, 
and  then  called  on  him  to  say  whether  there  would  be  any  incon- 
venience in  the  production  of  the  papers  now  moved  for?  To 
this  he  distinctly  answered,  yes,  there  would  be  the  highest  in- 
convenience. His  right  honourable  friend  had  told  them  that  we 
had  but  one  ally  in  Europe,  and  that  he  was  in  the  greatest  dan- 
ger. He  argued  that  this  danger  would  arise  to  Sweden,  from 
having  entered  into  a  compact  with  this  country  relative  to  taking 
possession  of  Norway,  and,  in  return,  asked  for  the  whole  corres- 
pondence relating  to  that  transaction. 

His  right  honourable  friend's  belief  with  respect  to  that,  was 
founded  on  a  few  paragraphs  in  the  Moniteur,  which  he  brought 
down,  threw  on  the  table,  and  then  called  on  Ministers  for  all  the 
correspondence  between  them  and  their  only  ally;  he  thought, 
however,  Ministers  knew  too  well  how  to  show  their  value  for 
their  only  ally,  to  comply  with  so  unreasonable  a  request.  He 
did  not  know  how  it  was,  but  it  seemed  to  him  that  the  Moniteur 
had  been  strangely  favourable  to  the  views  of  the  honourable  gen- 
tlemen opposite;  for  they  no  sooner  began  to  be  exhausted  in 
topics  of  declamation  against  Ministers,  and  to  show  symptoms  of 
being  languid  and  flat,  than  over  popped  a  Moniteur  with  some 
agreeable  information  to  cheer  their  drooping  spirits,  and  to  give 
them  a  fresh  opportunity  of  calling  for  more  papers*  in  doing 
which,  he  thought,  his  right  honourable  friend  had,  on  the  present 
occasion,  shown  a  voracious  curiosity.  If  he  would  limit  it  to 
any  information  that  could  safely  he  laid  before  the  House,  he 
would  he  glad  to  oblige  him  as  far  as  possible,  to  give  him  an  op- 
portunity of  joining  more  effectually  in  the  motion  which  the 
honourable  and  learned  gentleman  soon  meant  to  move  on  the  ca- 
pitulation of  Copenhagen.     He  assured  the  House,  thai  in  every 


72  EXPEDITION  TO  COPENHAGEN. 

respect  that  treaty  had  been  complied  with  on  our  part.  There 
had  been  a  conference  as  to  British  property  seized  and  detained 
prior  to  our  taking  possession  of  Zealand.  A  doubt  having  arisen 
whether  the  capitulation  meant  to  confine  it  to  Zealand  only,  or 
to  the  rest  of  the  Danish  territory,  it  was  agreed  to  be  submitted 
to  the  officers  on  both  sides,  who  made  the  capitulation,  and  was 
determined  against  the  English,  and  implicitly  complied  with. 
The  same,  as  to  hostilities  by  the  declaration  of  war,  which  were 
not  known  at  the  time  of  the  capitulation:  every  thing  had  been 
abided  by,  that  was  stipulated  by  the  capitulation.  His  right  hon- 
ourable friend  was  also  mistaken  as  to  the  offer  of  Norway  to 
Sweden  by  France.  It  was  Prince  Murat,  and  not  General  Brune, 
that  made  the  offer  which  Sweden  communicated  to  Denmark, 
but  which  Denmark  concealed  from  us.  His  right  honourable 
friend  seemed  to  think,  that  France  might  do  as  she  pleased — 
might  give  away  Norway  with  impunity,  whilst  we  should  be 
highly  criminal  in  any  such  intention,  let  the  state  of  warfare  be- 
tween us  and  Denmark  be  what  it  might.  His  last  point,  how- 
ever, was,  that  we  should  not  follow  the  example  of  the  enemy. 
In  that  respect  His  Majesty  had  hitherto  carried  on  a  system  of 
scrupulous  forbearance.  If  his  right  honourable  friend  meant 
that  we  should  not  imitate  his  cruelties,  oppressions,  and  unbound- 
ed aggressions,  he  would  coincide  with  him;  but  if  he  meant  that 
we  should  not  follow  him  in  every  measure  which  might  tend 
to  put  us  on  a  perfect  equality  with  him  in  carrying  on  the  war, 
he  must  differ  with  him  entirely.  His  right  honourable  friend 
had  indulged  the  exuberant  fancy  of  his  classic  mind,  by  giving 
garbled  extracts  from  Latin  poets  by  way  of  quotation,  such  as — 
"  Ridiculum  acri  quid  vet  at."  If  he  was  inclined  to  retort  a 
quotation  on  his  right  honourable  friend,  it  would,  he  thought,  be 
strictly  allowable  to  him  to  say, — 

"  Arraa  virumque  cano." "  Fas  est  et  ab  hoste  doceri." 

Buonaparte,  whatever  might  be  his  cruelties,  his  oppressions,  or 
his  aggressions,  had  on  all  occasions  scrupulouly  adhered  to  and 
protected  those  who  had  entered  into  alliance  with  him;  he  had 
never  sacrificed  an  ally  to  any  consideration,  however  pressing 
or  important.  Ministers  were  that  night  called  on  to  give  up  the 
correspondence  of  our  only  all}',  which  could  not  fail  of  being  at- 
tended with  great  inconvenience;  and  he  would,  therefore,  so  far 
follow  the  example  of  the  enemy,  as  to  adhere  to  our  ally,  and  to 
refuse  his  assent  to  his  right  honourable  friend's  motion. 

The  House  divided — 

For  the  motion        ....  85 

Against  it 184 

Majority        -        -  99 


73 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE   OF  YORK. 

MARCH  8th,  1809. 

Mr.  Wardle  moved  the  order  of  the  day  for  taking  into  consideration  the 
Minutes  of  Evidence  taken  before  the  Committee  who  were  appointed  to  in- 
vestigate the  Conduct  of  His  Royal  Highness  the  Duke  of  York,  the  Com- 
mander-in-Chief, with  regard  to  Promotions,  Exchanges,  and  Appointments  to 
Commissions  in  the  Army  and  Staff  of  the  Army.  The  honourable  member 
proceeded  to  offer  what  he  had  to  say  upon  the  evidence,  on  the  several  promi- 
nent parts  of  which  he  commented  at  considerable  length.  He  concluded  by 
moving  the  following  Address: — 

"  That  an  humble  Address  be  presented  to  His  Majesty,  humbly  stating  to 
His  Majesty  that  information  has  been  communicated  to  this  House,  and  evi- 
dence produced  to  support  it,  of  various  corrupt  practices  and  other  abuses  having 
prevailed  for  some  years  past,  in  the  disposal  of  commissions  and  promotions  in 
His  Majesty's  land  forces;  that  His  Majesty's  faithful  Commons,  according  to 
the  duty  by  which  they  are  bound  to  His  Majesty  and  to  their  constituents, 
have  carefully  examined  into  the  truth  of  sundry  transactions  which  have  been 
brought  before  them,  in  proof  of  such  corrupt  practices  and  abuses;  and  that  it 
is  with  the  utmost  concern  and  astonishment  His  Majesty's  faithful  Commons 
find  themselves  obliged,  most  humbly,  to  inform  His  Majesty  that  the  result 
of  their  diligent  inquiries  into  the  facts,  by  the  examination  of  persons  con- 
cerned, together  with  other  witnesses,  and  a  variety  of  documents,  has  been 
such  as  to  satisfy  his  faithful  Commons  that  the  existence  of  such  corrupt  prac- 
tices and  abuses  is  substantially  true.  That  His  Majesty's  faithful  Commons 
are  restrained  by  motives  of  personal  respect  and  attachment  to  His  Majesty, 
from  entering  into  a  detail  of  these  transactions,  being  convinced  that  they 
could  not  be  stated  without  exciting  the  most  painful  sensations  of  grief  and  in- 
dignation in  the  breast  of  His  Majesty.  That  the  proceedings  of  His  Majesty's 
faithful  Commons  upon  this  important  subject  have  been  public,  and  the  evi- 
dence brought  before  them  is  recorded  in  the  proceedings  of  Parliament;  and 
that  they  trust  His  Majesty  will  give  them  credit  when  they  assure  His  Ma- 
jesty, that,  in  the  execution  of  this  painful  duty,  they  have  proceeded  with  all 
due  deliberation.  That,  without  entering  into  any  other  of  the  many  obvious 
consequences  which  may  be  expected  to  follow,  from  the  belief  once  generally 
established,  of  the  prevalence  of  such  abuses  in  the  military  department,  there 
is  one  great  and  essential  consideration  inseparable  from  the  present  subject, 
which  they  humbly  beg  leave,  in  a  more  particular  manner,  to  submit  to  His 
Majesty's  gracious  consideration;  namely,  that  if  an  opinion  should  prevail 
amongst  His  Majesty's  land  forces,  that  promotion  may  be  obtained  by  other 
means  than  by  merit  and  service — by  means  at  once  unjust  to  the  army,  and 
disgraceful  to  the  authority  placed  over  it — the  effect  of  such  an  opinion  must 
necessarily  be,  to  wound  the  feelings  and  abate  the  zeal  of  all  ranks  and  de- 
scriptions of  His  Majesty's  army.  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  House  that 
the  abuses  which  they  have  most  humbly  represented  to  His  Majesty,  could 
not  have  prevailed  to  the  extent  in  which  they  had  been  proved  to  exist,  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  the  Commander-in-Chief;  and  that  even  if,  upon  any 
principle  of  reason  or  probability,  it  could  be  presumed  that  abuses  so  various 
and  so  long  continued,  could,  in  fact,  have  prevailed  without  his  knowledge, 
such  a  presumption  in  his  favour  would  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the 
11  H 


74  CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

command  of  the  army  could,  with  safety,  or  ought,  in  prudence,  to  be  contin- 
ued in  his  hands.  That  on  these  grounds  and  principles,  His  Majesty's  faith- 
ful Commons  most  humbly  submit  their  opinion  to  His  Majesty's  gracious  con- 
sideration, that  His  Royal  Highness  the  Duke  of  York  ought  to  be  deprived  of 
the  command  of  the  army." 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  proposed,  as  an  amendment  to  the 
honourable  gentleman's  Address,  to  leave  out  all  of  it  but  the  word  "  that,"  for 
the  purpose  of  converting  his  motion  for  an  Address  into  a  Resolution.  He 
thought  it  absolutely  and  indispensably  necessary  that  the  House  should  decide 
the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence,  and,  therefore,  he  should  submit  a  question 
expressive  of  the  sense  of  the  House,  that  they  should  decide  the  question  as 
follows. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  then  read  two  resolutions,  acquitting  the 
Duke  of  York  of  any  personal  corruption  or  connivance  at  the  infamous  and 
corrupt  practices  disclosed  in  the  evidence  taken  on  the  inquiry. 

These  Resolutions  he  proposed  to  introduce  into  an  Address,  the  substance 
of  which  is  contained  in  the  following  extract: — 

"  His  Majesty's  faithful  Commons  think  it  their  duty  to  state  to  His  Majesty, 
that  whilst  this  House  has  seen  with  satisfaction,  in  the  course  of  this  inquiry, 
the  exemplary  regularity  and  method  with  which  the  business  of  the  Com- 
mander-in-Chief has  been  conducted  under  the  direction  of  His  Royal  High- 
ness; and  also  the  many  salutary  and  efficient  regulations  which  have  been  in- 
troduced into  the  army,  during  his  command  of  it — some  of  which  regulations 
have  been  specially  directed  to  prevent  those  very  abuses,  which  have,  in  this 
inquiry,  been  brought  under  the  notice  of  the  House  of  Commons — they  could 
not  but  feel  the  most  serious  regret  and  concern,  that  a  connexion  should  ever 
have  existed,  under  the  cover  of  which,  transactions  of  a  highly  criminal  and 
disgraceful  nature  have  been  carried  on,  and  that  an  opportunity  has  been  af- 
forded, of  falsely  and  injuriously  coupling  with  such  transactions  the  name  of 
His  Royal  Highness,  whereby  the  integrity  of  his  conduct  in  the  discharge  of 
the  duties  of  his  high  office,  has  been  brought  into  question;  that  it  is,  how- 
ever, a  great  consolation  to  this  House,  to  observe  the  deep  regret  and  concern 
which  His  Royal  Highness  has  himself  expressed  on  the  subject  of  that  con- 
nexion; as  from  the  expression  of  that  regret  on  the  part  of  His  Royal  High- 
ness, this  House  derives  the  confident  assurance  that  His  Royal  Highness  will 
henceforth  invariably  keep  in  view  that  bright  example  of  virtuous  conduct, 
which  the  uniform  tenor  of  His  Majesty's  life,  during  the  course  of  his  whole 
reign,  has  afforded  to  all  his  subjects,  and  which  has  so  much  endeared  His 
Majesty  to  the  affection  of  every  rank  and  description  of  his  people." 

Mr.  Bankes  moved  another  amendment,  which  varied  slightly  from  the 
original  one.  It  contained  the  additional  expression,  "  That  the  abuses  which 
had  been  disclosed  during  the  progress  of  the  examination,  had  unveiled  a 
course  of  conduct  of  the  worst  example  to  public  morals,  and  highly  injurious 
to  the  cause  of  religion." 

On  the  sixth  night  of  the  adjourned  debate  on  the  original  Address,  and  the 
two  amendments  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and  Mr.  Bankes, 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning,  in  a  speech  of  great  length  and 
ability,  commented  on  the  evidence  in  all  its  details.  A  few  ex- 
tracts from  the  speech  will  suffice  as  a  record  of  the  part  that  Mr. 
Canning  took  in  the  discussions  that  arose  on  the  inquiry  into  the 
Duke  of  York's  conduct : — 

Sir, — There  are  two  Addresses  before  the  House.  For  the 
Address  of  the  honourable  member  who  brought  forward  the 
question,  I  cannot  vote,  because  I  do  not  agree  with  the  aver- 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE   OF  YORK.  75 

ments  of  it;  but  certainly  I  should  have  less  difficulty  in  voting 
for  that  Address  than  for  the  Address  supported  by  my  honoura- 
ble friend  (Mr.  Wilberforce,  who  supported  the  Address  moved 
by  Mr.  Bankes). 

Is  it  wise  or  fair  when  you  have  before  you  questions,  all  in- 
deed of  misconduct,  but  differing  in  their  degrees:  some  calling 
for  punishment,  some  for  animadversion,  and  some  more  fitly  per- 
haps the  subject  of  silent  regret,  than  either  of  punishment  or  of 
animadversion:  is  it  wise  or  fair  to  take  an  indistinct  view  of  all 
these  questions  at  once,  and  give,  as  it  were,  an  average  decision 
upon  them  ?  Is  it  just  to  the  person  who  is  the  subject  of  this 
inquiry?  Is  it  respectful,  is  it  kind,  is  it  humane  to  that  other 
personage  to  whom  those  Addresses  are  to  be  carried,  deeply  in- 
terested as  he  must  be  in  the  result,  both  as  a  Sovereign  and  as  a 
Father  ?  Is  a  decision  of  such  a  nature  consonant  to  the  justice, 
or  creditable  to  the  character  of  Parliament? 

First,  as  to  what  is  due  to  the  illustrious  person  whose  conduct 
is  the  subject  of  this  inquiry. 

And  here  let  me  guard  against  an  insinuation  which  is  too  often 
thrown  out,  as  if  there  were  intended  to  be  some  claim  set  up 
for  particular  forbearance  towards  this  illustrious  person,  on  ac- 
count of  his  station;  as  if  it  were  intended  or  attempted  to  pre- 
vent the  House  of  Commons  from  inquiring  into  his  conduct.  I 
have  seen  no  such  thing  attempted.  I  believe  no  such  thing  to  have 
been  intended  in  any  quarter.  And  I  trust,  that  whatever  the  deci- 
sion of  the  House  may  be,  there  will  not  be  fastened  on  the  House 
itself,  or  on  any  member  of  it,  a  suspicion  of  having  acted  upon 
such  views. 

But  when  we  are  cautioned  not  to  take  into  consideration  the 
rank  of  the  Commander-in-Chief  in  the  course  of  the  inquiry,  or 
in  mitigation  of  punishment,  let  us  be  sure  that  these  considera- 
tions, so  cautiously  to  be  abstained  from  in  favour  of  the  Duke  of 
York,  be  not  suffered  to  operate  the  other  way. 

My  honourable  friend  has  spoken  of  the  times  in  which  we 
live;  my  honourable  friend  is  in  the  habit  of  viewing  these 
times  with  a  philosophical  eye,  of  comparing  the  present  with  the 
past.  Let  him  tell  me  whether  upon  comparison  with  any  times 
of  which  he  has  ever  read,  he  will  say  that  the  peculiar  bent  of 
the  disposition  of  the  present  times  is  to  exalt  the  high  at  the 
expense  of  the  low?  Will  he  tell  me  that  the  current  of  public 
prejudice  does  not  run  precisely  the  other  way?  I  think  my 
honourable  friend  will  agree  with  me,  that  if  there  are  any  who 
allow  weight  to  the  consideration  of  the  rank  of  His  Royal  High- 
ness as  exempting  him  from  punishment,  there  are  many,  many 
more,  whose  feelings  are  the  more  acrimonious  against  him  on 


~G        CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

that  account,  and  who  consider  him  as,  on  that  account,  the  more 
desirable  victim. 

I  must  entreat  the  House  therefore  to  look  not  to  one  side  of 
this  question  only — that  is  all  that  I  desire.  All  that  it  is  right 
to  ask  on  behalf  of  the  Duke  of  York  is,  that  he  should  have  no 
favour,  but  no  prejudice;  that  he  shall  be  considered  on  a  par 
with  the  meanest  subject  of  his  father;  that  he  shall  not  be  ex- 
cluded by  his  rank  from  all  those  protecting  presumptions  which 
the  ordinary  course  of  law  affords  to  every  person  under  ac- 
cusation. 

What  then  is  the  situation  of  His  Royal  Highness?  Charges 
have  been  preferred  against  him: — no,  not  charges,  I  am  told, 
because  not  reduced  into  writing.  To  whom  that  is  attributed, 
as  a  fault,  if  to  any  one,  I  do  not  know;  charges,  however,  it  is 
said,  there  are  none,  they  are  only  accusations. 

These  charges,  then,  in  the  shape  of  accusations,  not  reduced 
to  writing,  but  preferred  in  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been 
preferred,  impute  to  His  Royal  Highness  the  Commander-in- 
Chief,  the  foul  and  degrading  imputation  of  direct  personal  cor- 
ruption, and  of  wilful  and  criminal  connivance  at  the  corrupt 
practices  of  others. 

True  it  is,  that  in  searching  for  evidence  of  these  graver  mat- 
ters, you  find  evidence  of  matters  of  comparatively  lighter  mo- 
ment; not  free  from  blame,  God  knows,  but  blame  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent description.  You  have  developed  scenes  of  misconduct, 
of  the  existence  of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt,  and  which  I 
neither  can,  nor  would  attempt  to  justify.  But  if,  in  endeavour- 
ing to  obtain  the  proof  of  the  facts  alleged  against  His  Royal 
Highness,  you  have  not  been  able  to  prove  those  facts,  but  have 
proved  something  different,  something  less,  does  it  follow  that  if 
he  is  innocent  of  the  great  offence,  the  lesser  ones  are  to  preclude 
him  from  acquittal? 

It  is  said,  however,  that  there  is  no  record  of  this  inquiry;  no 
specific  entry  on  our  journals  which  renders  a  specific  sentence 
of  acquittal  or  condemnation  necessary.  Posterity,  it  is  said,  will 
know  nothing  of  our  proceedings  but  from  our  journals;  and 
there  is,  therefore,  no  injustice  done  to  the  Duke  of  York  in 
leaving  such  a  charge  without  an  answer.  Is  it  possible  to  urge 
this  argument  seriously?  If  it  might  be  true  in  former  times  that 
the  formal  acts,  the  recorded  transactions  of  Parliament,  and  those 
alone,  would  go  abroad  to  the  world,  or  descend  to  posterity, 
blasting  the  name  and  character  of  a  man  accused, — are  we  there- 
fore to  be  told  that  the  case  is  the  same  now  ?  That  now,  when 
by  those  modes  of  dissemination  of  which  we  are  all  aware,  the 
knowledge  of  all  that  passes  in  this  House  is  extended  in  a  few 
hours  to  every  dorner  of  the  kingdom,  and,  by  degrees,  to  the  re- 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.  77 

motest  parts  of  the  world;  that  there  is  now  no  unfairness,  no  cru- 
elty, in  leaving  such  charges  unrefuted,  because  not  formally  en- 
tered upon  record)  Is  there  any  man  who  can  satisfy  himself,  in 
the  present  times,  to  set  up  this  technical  plea  in  defence  of  such 
substantial  injustice  ? 

So  much  for  the  record,  even  if  the  fact  which  is  taken  as  the 
basis  of  the  argument  were  true.  But  is  there  not,  after  all,  a  re- 
cord!— is  there  not  that  record  which,  when  in  the  most  distant 
time  or  country  our  proceedings  shall  be  read,  will  plainly  indi- 
cate the  nature  of  the  charge,  at  the  same  time  that  there  will  be 
to  be  collected  from  our  proceedings  that  condemnation,  which, 
if  we  intend  to  pronounce  it,  surely  we  cannot  intend  to  conceaj  ? 

What  appears  on  the  record)  It  appears  that  the  House  referred 
to  a  committee  of  the  whole  House,  "  to  investigate  the  conduct 
of  His  Royal  Highness  the  Commander-in-Chief,  with  regard  to 
promotions,  exchanges,  and  appointments  to  commissions  in  the 
army,  and  the  staff  of  the  army,  and  in  raising  levies  for  the  army." 

What  further  will  appear,  if  this  Address,  if  either  of  the  two 
proposed  Addresses  shall  be  voted  by  the  House  ?  Why,  that  the 
House,  after  receiving  the  report  of  their  committee,  are  of  "opin- 
ion that  "  corrupt  practices  have  prevailed  "  in  the  disposal  of 
promotions,  exchanges,  &c.  &c,  in  the  army. 

With  whom  is  that  disposal  ?  Why,  with  the  Commander-in- 
Chief.  Whose  conduct  were  the  committee  to  investigate  in  re- 
spect to  this  disposal  ?  Why,  the  Commander-in-Chief's,  the  Duke 
of  York's. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  Duke  of  York  will  appear,  on  the 
face  of  these  proceedings,  if  we  shall  vote  either  of  the  Addresses 
proposed,  to  be  found  guilty  of  corruption;  and  yet,  gentlemen 
who  are  prepared  to  vote  for  these  Addresses,  professed  them- 
selves, at  the  same  time,  ready  to  allow  that  there  is  nothing  of 
corruption  in  His  Royal  Highness's  conduct.  Are  they,  or  are 
they  not,  ready  to  allow  this?  They  must  come  to  this  averment 
or  this  denial.  Rut  to  say  that  there  can  stand  upon  the  journals 
of  Parliament  such  a  reference  to  a  committee,  followed  by  such 
an  averment  of  the  existence  of  corrupt  practices,  and  that,  never- 
theless, you  have  not  framed  any  distinct  charge,  and,  therefore, 
are  not  bound  to  give  any  distinct  decision,  is  a  course  of  proceed- 
ing ;is  contrary  to  common  sense  as  to  common  justice.  A  vote 
founded  on  these  pretences  will  produce  all  the  effect,  without 
plainly  pronouncing  the  sentence  of  condemnation.  If  you  pass 
this  Address,  it  is  impossible  that  your  country  and  posterity 
should  consider  His  Royal  Highness  otherwise  than  as  having 
been  judged  guilty  of  these  charges,  of  charges  the  most  criminal 
and  degrading. 

But  it  is  admitted  that  these  charges  are  false — (some  member 

H* 


78        CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

said  No!) — I  am  glad  to  hear  that  it  is  not  so  admitted;  I  am  glad 
to  find  that  there  is  in  some  quarters,  at  least,  an  impatience  of 
being  supposed  to  admit  what  this  Address  is,  by  its  supporters, 
pretended  to  imply;  because  I  presume  that  those  who  feel  that 
impatience  will  insist  upon  having  their  real  meaning  fairly  and 
unequivocally  explained  by  their  vote.  They  will  agree  with  me, 
not  in  their  decision  undoubtedly,  but  at  least  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  alone  their  decision  can  be  properly  taken.  They  will 
call  for  a  plain,  intelligible  question.  They  will  not  be  contented 
with  a  speech  of  charge  and  a  vote  of  compromise;  a  speech 
which  insinuates  guilt,  and  a  vote  which  only  avoids  affirming  in- 
nocence, and  leaves  the  guilt  to  be  collected  and  inferred.  They 
will  be  for  an  "  aye  "  or  a  "  no  "  upon  the  questions  of  "  corrup- 
tion "  or  "  connivance." 

******* 

The  Address  of  my  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Bankes)  submits 
to  His  Majesty,  "  whether,  even  if  it  can  be  presumed  that  abuses 
so  various  and  so  long-continued,  could  have  prevailed  without 
the  knowledge  of  His  Royal  Highness,  the  command  of  the  army 
can,  with  propriety,  or  ought,  in  ■prudence,  to  remain  any  longer 
in  his  hands.  "What  should  we  say  of  a  judge,  who,  in  summing 
up  the  evidence  on  the  trial  of  a  culprit,  should  state  to  the  jury 
this?  "The  evidence  before  you  does  not  appear  to  prove  the 
guilt  alleged  in  the  indictment;  but  it  may  not  be  prudent  to  say 
so.  If,  for  other  reasons  not  before  you  in  evidence,  you  are 
of  opinion  that  it  is  expedient  the  man  should  be  hanged,  you 
will  take  into  account  those  prudential  reasons  for  getting  him 
out  of  the  way,  and  frame  your  verdict  accordingly."  This  is, 
in  substance,  the  language  of  the  Address:  this  is,  almost  without 
disguise,  the  language  of  those  who  support  it.  They  have  told 
us  plainly  that  they  do  not  think  it  expedient  to  come  to  a  vote, 
a  direct  affirmative  or  negative  vote,  upon  the  plain  question, 
"  Guilty  or  not  guilty  of  corruption  ?"  Even  my  honourable  friend 
who  spoke  last,  in  that  part  of  his  speech  where  he  alluded  to 
parliamentary  tricks,  seemed  to  think  that  this  call  for  a  direct 
vote  upon  the  principal  charge,  was  one  of  those  tricks:  a  trick 
which  he  was  determined  to  defeat.  A  trick,  to  call  for  decision 
upon  a  charge!  A  trick,  to  put  an  accused  man  on  his  trial!  In 
what  vocabulary  shall  we  find  words  to  describe  the  other  func- 
tions of  Parliament,  if  the  performance  of  this,  one  of  our  highest 
duties,  the  ascertainment  of  guilt  or  innocence  upon  a  grave  crim- 
inal accusation — if  the  endeavour  to  perform  this  duty  strictly  and 
conscientiously,  is  to  be  branded  as  a  trick  and  a  delusion  ? 

The  Duke  of  York  has  been  accused  of  personal  corruption,  of 
wilful  connivance.  True  it  is,  that  he  is  assailed  by  minor 
charges;  but  will  any  one  say,  who  loves  justice,  who  thinks  rever- 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.  79 

ently  of  the  laws  of  the  land  in  which  he  lives,  who  rememhers 
that  in  this  land  "  no  man  is  to  be  found  guilty  but  by  the  judg- 
ment of  his  peers,"  and  that  even  a  person  accused  of  the  most 
heinous  crimes,  has  the  right  "  to  be  presumed  not  to  be  guilty,  till 
he  is  proved  and  pronounced  guilty" — will  any  man,  who  knows 
that  he  has  these  for  his  birthrights,  and  who  prizes  them  as  they 
deserve,  will  any  such  man  be  induced  by  any  eloquence,  by  any 
ingenuity,  or  by  the  weight  of  any  authority  whatsoever,  to  con- 
sider a  call  for  decision  upon  a  charge,  before  punishment  is 
inflicted,  as  nothing  but  a  trick  of  Parliament,  nothing  but  the 
tactics  of  party  ? 

It  is  on  these  principles  that  I  do  call  upon  you  for  a  decision: 
principles,  the  fair  operation  of  which  were  never  denied  to  any 
man  before.  I  ask  for  no  partial  favour  for  the  Duke  of  York, 
beyond  that  which  is  due  to  any  other  subject  in  the  kingdom: 
but  let  it  not  be  said,  that  in  the  first  case  of  the  sort  which  the 
House  of  Commons  has  had  to  decide,  it  has  made  a  precedent 
unfavourable  to  the  party  accused,  for  no  better  reason  than  be- 
cause the  party  accused  was  of  the  highest  rank,  and  because  jus- 
tice done  to  him  might,  therefore,  have  been  misrepresented  as 
partiality!  How  any  gentleman  can  have  made  up  his  mind  to 
consent  to  a  general  lumping  Address,  condemning,  by  a  com- 
prehensive censure,  without  sentence,  without  reference  to  the 
proof  of  facts,  to  the  gradations  and  degrees  of  blame,  or  to  any 
just  apportionment  of  punishment;  and  how,  in  agreeing  to  such 
an  Address,  any  man  can  fancy  that  he  is  discharging  conscien- 
tiously the  duty  imposed  upon  him  on  this  occasion,  does  pass  my 
understanding. 

But,  in  any  case,  in  all  cases,  in  any  or  in  all  modes  of  proceed- 
ing, this  question  of  acquittal  or  condemnation  upon  the  greater 
charges  must  take  place,  and  must,  in  justice,  precede  even  the 
examination  of  the  less  criminal  matter  of  inquiry.  To  this  jus- 
tice, I  say,  the  Duke  of  York,  in  common  with  every  accused 
person,  is  entitled. 

"  Oh,  (but  it  is  said,)  those  only  are  entitled  to  this  justice,  who 
have  not,  by  their  own  act,  disinherited  themselves  of  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  British  constitution."  The  Commander-in- 
Chief,  it  seems,  has  done  this:  he  has  written  a  letter,  Sir,  through 
you,  to  this  House,  in  which  he  has  presumed  to  dictate  to  the 
House  the  mode  of  proceeding,  and  contumaciously  to  assert  his  in- 
nocence, and  call  for  trial.  True,  Sir,  he  has  written  a  letter:  he 
has,  in  that  letter,  not  dictated  but  taken  for  granted,  the  same 
course  of  justice,  in  his  own  case,  which  is  applicable,  and  is  uni- 
formly applied,  to  all  his  fellow  subjects.  He  has  asserted  bis  in- 
nocence.    If  that  be   denied,  he   has   called  for  trial.     What  is 


80  CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

there  in  all  this  to  deprive  him  of  the  right  of  being  tried,  to  jus- 
tify the  condemning  him  unheard  ?  Look  at  the  meanest  prisoner 
at  a  bar,  who  waits  the  decision  of  his  jury  on  an  accusation  of 
the  foulest  felonies;  what  is  the  course  with  respect  to  him?  His 
crime  is  stated  to  him:  he  says  he  is  "  not  guilty."  If  he  omits 
this  plea  himself,  it  is  pleaded  for  him.  In  him  this  plea  is  not 
considered  as  contumacious;  it  is  not  considered  as  abdicating  his 
right  to  a  trial.  On  the  contrary,  the  felon  is  then  asked  how  he 
will  be  tried?  He  replies,  "by  God,  and  his  country."  In  the 
felon,  this  is  not  considered  as  dictating  to  his  judge.  But,  in  the 
Prince,  to  call  for  a  trial,  is,  it  seems,  a  species  of  contempt  of 
court,  a  rebellion  against  the  supremacy  of  the  tribunal  before 
which  he  is  arraigned,  such  as  not  only  subjects  him  to  punish- 
ment, but  deprives  him  of  the  right  of  being  tried.  Is  this  equal 
justice?  AVill  an  honourable  gentlemen  (Mr.  Whitbread,)  who 
spoke  the  other  day  with  great  ability  and  great  warmth  on  this 
very  topic,  of  the  equality  of  the  rights  of  princes  with  those  of 
ordinary  men,  will  he  suffer  patiently,  will  he  consent  to,  and  con- 
cur in  effecting  the  gross  inequality  which  this  argument  would 
establish,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  person  now  under  consideration, 
only  because  he  is  a  prince?  But  the  "honour  of  a  prince,"  ap- 
peared to  that  honourable  gentleman  a  most  offensive  expression. 
Why  so?  The  "  honour"  of  a. peer  is  a  regular  and  purely  tech- 
nical form  of  affirmation;  why  not  the  "honour"  of  a  prince? 
But  the  honourable  gentleman  told  us  that  the  honour  of  a  prince 
had  thus  been  put  in  competition  with  the  word  of  a  prostitute, 
and  that,  being  compelled  to  decide  between  them,  he  had  felt 
himself  obliged  to  believe  the  latter.  "  The  Duke  of  York," 
said  the  honourable  gentleman,  "  has  aggravated  his  case,  because 
I  am  thus  put  in  a  situation  of  the  greatest  difficulty  and  delicacy. 
I  cannot  condemn  him  of  the  crime  with  which  he  is  charged, 
without  condemning  him,  at  the  same  time,  of  falsehood,  vouched 
upon  his  honour."  This  was  the  substance  of  the  honourable 
gentleman's  argument.  Was  the  like  ever  heard  ?  A  man  is  ac- 
cused of  a  crime;  he  protests  his  innocence;  and  his  protestation 
is  contended  to  be  an  aggravation  of  his  offence,  because  you  can- 
not afterwards  affirm  his  guilt,  without  contradicting  his  plea  of 
innocence!  And  this  is  a  case  of  difficulty  and  delicacy,  forsooth, 
to  the  honourable  gentleman  and  his  friends!    0,  this  delicacy!  it 

stands  much  in  their  way. 

******* 

Upon  the  view  of  the  evidence  suggested  by  the  speech  of  my 
right  honourable  friend,  what  appears  most  incontrovertible  and 
most  important,  is  this — the  only  link  that  connects  the  foul  trans- 
actions which  have  been  developed  to  the  House  with  His  Royal 
Highness  the  Commander-in-Chief,  is  the  testimony  of  the  offend- 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.  81 

er  herself.  That  this  testimony  has  received  partial  confirmation 
from  collateral  and  circumstantial  evidence,  that  many  statements 
which  were  at  first  sight  thought  incredible,  have  been  confirmed, 
either  by  the  testimony  of  others  whose  veracity  is  not  question- 
ed, or  by  letters  produced  by  herself,  or  accidentally  discovered, 
I  readily  allow;  but  nothing,  independent  of  her  own  testimony, 
has  proved  the  privity  of  the  Duke  of  York. 

My  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Wilberforce)  dwelt  much  on  this 
part  of  the  subject,  and  particularly  on  the  almost  providential  de- 
tection (as  he  would  have  it  to  be)  of  the  letters  in  possession  of 
Captain  Sandon;  which  letters,  he  says  (rather  incorrectly,)  have 
been  carefully  evaded  by  all  those  who  have  spoken  in  defence 
of  His  Royal  Highness.  Does  he  know  how  many  there  were  of 
those  letters?  Let  him  refer  to  the  printed  volume  of  evidence. 
There  are  forty-two.  Does  he  know  how  many  of  these  were 
commented  upon  yesterday,  in  great  detail,  with  laborious  particu 
larity,  and  with  convincing  clearness,  by  my  honourable  friend 
(Mr.  Croker,)  the  effect  of  whose  commentary  was  so  completely 
satisfactory  as  to  make  it  worse  than  useless  to  follow  him  ?  Why, 
exactly  thirty-one.  This  is  surely  a  complete  answer  to  the 
charge,  that  these  letters  have  been  studiously  left  unnoticed.  But 
neither  is  it  true  that  these  letters,  or  any  accidentally  discovered 
evidence,  has  gone  to  confirm  the  testimony  of  the  principal  wit- 
ness and  criminal,  in  respect  to  the  privity  of  the  Duke  of  York.  It 
is  incontrovertibly  true  that  the  charge  of  the  Duke  of  York's  privi- 
ty to  Mrs.  Clarke's  corrupt  practices  rests  on  the  testimony  of  Mrs. 
Clarke  alone.  I  say  her  "corrupt  practices;"  for  with  respect  to 
her  interference,  without  rebuke  I  cannot  deny,  and  have  no  wish 
to  excuse,  the  fact,  that  the  letter  respecting  General  Clavering,  af- 
fords a  decisive  proof :  but  of  corruption,  or  of  the  knowledge  or 
suspicion  of  corruption,  there  is  no  proof  at  all;  nor  any  thing 
that  can,  by  the  most  uncharitable  inference,  be  taken  for  proof. 

The  other  piece  of  evidence  which  is  thought  to  corroborate 
the  testimony  of  the  accusing  witness,  on  this  point,  is  the  note 
respecting  Tonyn;  and  this  is  the  particular,  with  respect  to  which 
(as  I  have  said)  I  entertain  a  different  opinion  from  that  declared 
by  my  right  honourable  friend  (the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.) 
He  thinks  thai  note  ;i  forgery.  I  certainly  believe  that  note  to  be 
genuine.  After  the  most  impartial  consideration  of  what  has  been 
said  for  and  against  its  authenticity,  I  am  convinced  (in  my  own 
judgment)  that  it  is  the  Duke  of  York's  note.  But  I  think,  at 
the  same  time,  that  a  most  exaggerated  importance  has  been  given 
to  this  note.  The  doubts  of  its  authenticity,  and  the  attempts  to 
disprove  it,  may,  perhaps,  have  contributed  to  this  exaggeration. 

If  I  am  asked,  how  I  can  explain  this  note  innocently,  I  an- 
swer frankly,  that  I  cannot  explain  it  at  all.    I  do  not  pretend  to  un- 

12 


82  CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

derstand  to  what  it  refers.  It  is  without  date;  it  is  an  answer  to 
a  question,  or  a  letter,  which  is  not  forthcoming;  it  contains  three 
hurried  lines:  and  in  this  total  obscurity,  and  absence  of  any 
grounds  of  reasoning,  or  even  of  conjecture,  I  see  nothing  extraor- 
dinary in  the  not  being  able  satisfactorily  to  explain  it.  The  wit- 
ness herself  did  not  pretend  to  know  any  thing  about  it;  nor,  I 
dare  say,  would  His  Royal  Highness. 

But,  Sir,  I  must  protest  on  behalf  of  all  who  are,  or  may  be, 
public  men,  against  an  inference  of  guilt  from  such  want  of  ex- 
planation. Any  man  who  knows  what  it  is  to  be  in  a  situation  to 
receive  twenty,  and  write  perhaps  a  dozen  letters  in  a  day,  many 
of  them  from  and  to  persons  of  whom  they  have  no  personal 
knowledge,  will  feel  with  me,  that  if  a  note,  of  which  they  may 
have  neglected  to  keep  a  copy,  is  to  be  produced  against  them, 
years  after  it  was  written,  and  they  are  to  be  called  upon  either  to 
deny  their  hand-writing,  or,  acknowledging  it,  to  account  for  the 
contents,  they  may  any  day  in  the  year  most  innocently  and  inad- 
vertently write  their  own  condemnation. 

Why,  Sir,  it  happened  to  me  to  find  among  my  papers,  a  very 
few  days  ago,  the  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  by  me  to  a  lady  in 
these  words: — "Madam,  I  have  received  your  valuable  present, 
and  have  only  to  assure  you,  that  you  may  depend  on  my  discre- 
tion."— This  letter  was  written  not  long  ago — since  this  inquiry 
began;  but  at  the  moment  of  finding  it,  I  was  so  utterly  uncon- 
scious to  what  it  related,  and  to  whom,  that  I  am  very  sure,  if  it 
had  been  to  be  used  against  me  ten  years  hence,  it  might  (if  ina- 
bility to  explain  it  were  a  sufficient  evidence  of  guilt)  have  been 
absolutely  conclusive  against  my  honour,  or  perhaps  my  life.     I 
could  not  help  fancying  to  myself  the  process  by  which  I  should 
thus  have  been  proved  guilty.  My  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Wilber- 
force)  has  told  you  that  Buonaparte  keeps  ladies  in  his  pay  to  cor- 
rupt the  ministers  of  other  courts.     Well;  here  is  a  letter  from 
the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  written  on  such  a  day 
to  a  lady,  acknowledging  a  "valuable  present;"  i.  e.  a  bribe — a 
manifest  bribe — and  assuring  her  that  she  may  "depend  on  his 
discretion."    The  very  language  of  crime  and  confederacy!    Now 
what  could  this  be  for?  The  treasonable  intention  is  plain  enough, 
but  to  what  was  it  applied  ?     Why,  about  that  time  peace  was 
concluded  with  the  Ottoman  Porte,  as  much  against  the  expecta- 
tion   as  against   the    interests   of  Buonaparte.     Buonaparte  was 
naturally  anxious  to  learn  the  contents  of  the  treaty;  and,  "see 
here,"  would  my  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Wilberforce,)  or  those 
who  reason  like  him,  exclaim,  "See  here,  the  letter  to  the  Lord 
Mayor,  announcing  this  Turkish  peace,  just  two  days  before  the 
date  of  this  most  providentially  discovered  letter."     According 
to  the  reasoning  applied  to  this  note  against  Tonyn,  here  would 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.  83 

be  my  condemnation  complete.  "A  bribe  was  offered  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,' of  £10,000,  to  betray  the  articles  of  the  Turk- 
ish treaty  to  Buonaparte.  The  lady  avows  she  offered  it;  and 
here  is  the  copy  of  a  letter  found  in  the  Secretary  of  State's 
drawer,  which  proves  his  acceptance!"  Here  then  would  be  con- 
viction, and  punishment  of  course  would  follow. 

Now,  Sir,  what  was  the  real  history  of  this  letter  ?  and  who 
was  this  lady?  This  lady,  Sir,  was  a  poetess,  who  did  me  the 
honour  to  send  to  me,  but  upon  condition  of  my  keeping  her  se- 
cret, her  poem — "an  ode  to  vaccination."  This  was  the  "pre- 
sent" which  I  acknowledged;  and  this  was  the  "discretion"  on 
which  I  assured  her  she  might  depend.  But  ten  years  hence  I 
should  not  have  recollected  this.  In  ten,  or  five,  or  two  years,  in 
all  probability,  I  should  have  forgotten  both  the  ode  and  the  lady: 
and  if  so,  there  wTould  not  have  been  wanting  those  who,  according 
to  this  new  mode  of  reasoning  upon  evidence,  would  have  voted 
me  guilty  of  high  treason,  and  carried  up  an  Address  to  the  Throne 
for  my  removal. 

Sir,  I  trust,  if  that  note  respecting  Tonyn,  because  unexplained 
and  unexplainable,  is  to  operate  the  weight  of  a  hair  in  judgment 
against  the  Duke  of  York,  inferior  courts  of  justice  will  not  learn 
their  rules  and  construction  of  evidence  from  us,  the  Commons  of 
Great  Britain. 

Again  then,  I  say,  Sir,  there  is  nothing  in  these  hidden  treas- 
ures, the  letters  discovered  in  Sandon's  possession,  which,  like  the 
talisman  in  the  Arabian  Nights,  were  supposed  to  shed  light 
around  them,  and  open  to  view  the  darkest  recesses  of  iniquity;  I 
say  there  is  nothing  that  goes  to  supply  the  link  which  is  wanting, 
in  the  whole  concatenation  of  evidence,  to  fasten  the  knowledge 
of  the  corrupt  practices  of  Mrs.  Clarke  upon  the  Duke  of  York. 
In  many  instances,  as  in  the  case  of  Spedding,  these  papers,  so  ac- 
cidentally, so  providentially  brought  to  light,  directly  contradict 
and  disprove  her  statement. 

But  then  it.  is  said,  a  witness  who  is  incredible  in  some  respects, 
is  not  so  in  all;  therefore  his  testimony  may  still  be  believed, 
where  it  is  corroborated  by  others.  It  will  not  be  contended, 
however,  that  an  incredible  witness,  such  as  Mrs.  Clarke  is  allow- 
ed to  be,  is  to  have  the  whole  of  her  evidence  believed,  because 
her  testimony  is  accidentally  strengthened  in  some  parts:  she  is 
credible  only  where  her  evidence  is  confirmed.  One  gentleman, 
indeed,  of  great  talents  and  eminence,  the  former  Solicitor-General 
(Sir  S.  Romilly,)  expressed  an  opinion,  which,  if  he  does  enter- 
tain, I  hope  he  will  be  found  to  be  the  only  man  who  entertains 
it,  "thai  a  witness  who  is  detected  in  giving  false  testimony,  in  one 
particular,  a  I,  the  bar  of  the  House  of  Commons,  is  not  so  much 
to  be  distrusted,  as  to  the  remaining  part  of  his  testimony,  as  a 


84         CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

witness  who  trips  when  upon  oath;  that  perjury,  indeed,  affects 
not  only  that  part  of  a  witness's  testimony  which  is  proved  to  be 
false,  but  the  whole;  but  that  an  unsworn  falsehood  vitiates  only 
the  ]jart  so  falsified,  and  leaves  the  remainder  as  worthy  of  credit 
as  before."  Such  I  collected  to  be  the  honourable  and  learned 
gentleman's  doctrine;  and  a  doctrine  more  monstrous  in  morals, 
or  more  destructive  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
it  would  not  be  easy  to  devise.  That  a  witness  who  speaks  false- 
ly when  not  on  oath,  is  not  thereby  rendered  wholy  unworthy 
of  belief,  when  the  sanction  of  an  oath  is  applied  to  him,  is  an 
intelligible  proposition:  a  man  might  be  ready  to  say  what  he 
would  not  swear:  but  to  maintain  that  he  who  is  proved  to  have 
said  one  thing  falsely,  is  therefore  not  liable  to  be  suspected  of 
saying  another  thing  falsely;  that  he  is  to  be  believed  in  the  re- 
mainder of  his  testimony,  as  if  he  had  not  been  detected  in  false- 
hood in  a  part,  is  a  proposition  which  it  will  require  something 
more  than  the  single  authority  of  that  honourable  and  learned  gen- 
tleman, (however  he  may  pride  himself  on  that  singularity,)  to 
maintain. 

The  main  questions,  therefore,  to  which  you  must  come,  are 
these:  do  you  believe  Mrs.  Clarke's  evidence,  or  do  you  not?  Or 
do  you  see  reason  to  think  that  there  is  a  mixture  of  truth  and 
falsehood  in  it?  There  are  but  these  three  possible  degrees  of 
credit.  Do  you  believe  this  woman  altogether?  She  affirms 
corrupt  knowledge  and  participation  to  the  fullest  extent.  Be- 
lieving this,  you  cannot  refuse  to  bring  the  Duke  of  York  to  trial. 
Do  you  not  believe  her?  Say  so;  say  so  by  your  vote,  by  a  re- 
corded sentence.  Are  you  in  doubt?  Do  you  find  it  difficult  to 
determine  how  much  to  believe?  how  much  to  reject?  That  is 
precisely  the  case  for  further  inquiry.  "To  be  once  in  doubt  is  to 
be  once  resolved."  Institute  such  inquiry  as  shall  convert  your 
doubts  into  certainties;  and  probe  the  matter  to  the  bottom. 

The  evidence  of  Mrs.  Clarke  is  true,  or  it  is  false,  or  it  is  partly 
false  and  partly  true.  Are  there  no  means  of  sifting  such  evi- 
dence? Are  there  no  sanctions,  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  God  and 
man,  by  which  truth  and  falsehood  can  be  discriminated?  Have 
those  sanctions  been  applied  to  this  testimony  ?  They  have  not. 
Have  you  the  power  of  applying  them?  Not  of  yourselves,  but 
by  reference  to  another  tribunal.  Can  any  honest  man  doubt, 
then,  that  such  ought  to  be  our  course,  rather  than  to  confound  the 
false  and  the  true  in  a  compromise  of  injustice,  and  to  come  to  a 
conclusion  which  may  be  wrong  cither  way,  but  can  by  no  possi- 
bility be  right? 

But  if  the  proof  is  deficient,  what  is  the  presumption  of  guilt  in 
His  Royal  Highness  the  Duke  of  York?  Your  Address  affirms 
"that  there  were  corrupt  practices  with  respect  to  promotions, 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.  85 

&c.  in  the  army."  It  does  not  affirm  that  the  Duke  of  York  was 
cognizant  of  them:  but  it  more  than  insinuates  that  he  was,  that  he 
must  have  been  so.  What  is  the  ground  of  this  insinuation? 
These  corrupt  practices  were  carried  on  by  a  firm  consisting  of 
the  Duke  of  York,  Mrs.  Clarke,  Colonel  Sandon,  Mr.  Donovan, 
&c.  In  1806  this  partnership  is  dissolved.  The  Duke  of  York 
goes  one  way;  Mrs.  Clarke  and  her  associates  the  other.  Are 
the  practices  continued  after  this  separation  ?  Yes.  By  whom  ? 
By  Mrs.  Clarke  and  Captain  Sandon.  And  yet  you  prosecute — 
whom?  The  Duke  of  York.  You  never  hear  of  the  Duke  of 
York's  malpractices,  except  in  connection  with  Mrs.  Clarke's 
name;  of  Mrs.  Clarke  there  are  abundant  malpractices,  wholly  un- 
connected with  the  name  of  his  Royal  Highness;  and  yet  you 
thinkit  just  to  punish  in  him,  not  in  her,  the  guilt  of  that  which 

you  do  not  even  show  him  to  have  known. 

******** 

But  my  honourable  friend  tells  us  that  all  the  world  knew  of 
this  connection;  that  it  was  matter  of  notoriety  that  the  Duke  of 
York  was  living  in  this  state  of  disgraceful  concubinage  with  Mrs. 
Clarke.  I  do  assure  the  House,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that 
I  did  not  know  it;  and  that  the  first  time  that,  to  my  recollection, 
I  ever  heard  the  name  of  Mrs.  Clarke,  was  in  this  House,  from 
the  lips  of  the  honourable  gentleman,  who  is  the  accuser  upon  this 
occasion.  I  may  be  giving  a  great  proof  of  my  ignorance  of  what 
is  going  on  in  the  world  by  this  declaration,  but  upon  my  honour 
it  is  true;  and  that  of  which  I  was  ignorant  may  have  been  equally 
unknown  to  others. 

This  utter  ignorance  it  was,  coupled  with  the  utter  disbelief 
which  I  felt,  of  the  Duke  of  York's  submitting  to  the  sort  of  traf- 
fic imputed  to  him  (a  feeling  which  I  should  entertain  in  its  full 
force,  if  I  were  to  hear  the  same  charges  to-morrow  brought 
against  any  honourable  gentleman  on  the  opposite  benches,)  that 
extorted  from  me,  on  the  night  when  the  honourable  gentleman 
opened  his  charges,  those  expressions  of  indignation  which  I  have 
so  often,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  been  called  upon  to  retract  or 
to  explain.  Sir,  I  have  nothing  to  retract  on  that  score;  nothing 
to  explain:  but  I  have  something  to  deny. 

I  did  say  that  "infamy  must  rest  somewhere,"  but  I  did  not 
say  that  it  must  rest  "either  on  the  accuser  or  on  the  accused."  I 
affirm  this  with  confidence;  not  only  from  my  recollection  of  the 
words,  but  from  my  recollection  of  whal  was  the  state  of  mind  in 
which  I  spoke,  and  what  the  scope  and  purview  of  my  statement 
on  that  occasion.  I  have,  besides,  endeavoured  to  correct  and  con- 
firm my  own  recollection,  by  reference  to  others,  by  reference  to 
certain  records  which  it  would  not  be  regular  directly  to  name, 
but  which  I  must  describe  as  well  as  I  can,  without  naming.    Sup- 

i 


86  CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

pose,  Sir,  there  were  daily  to  be  published  accounts  of  what  passes 
in  this  House,  multiplied  perhaps  to  the  number  of  ten  or  a  dozen, 
and  suppose  I  were  to  find  my  words  stated,  according  to  my  own 
recollection  of  them,  in  ten  or  eleven  of  those  accounts,  and  stated, 
as  the  noble  lord  and  those  opposite  recollect  them,  by  only  one 
of  those  reporters,  and  that  one  notoriously  a  decided  enemy  to 
me  and  to  those  with  whom  I  act;  should  I  not  be  warranted  in 
considering  the  many  which  agreed  in  confirming  my  own  recol- 
lection, as  better  authority  than  the  one  which  contradicted  it? 
Should  I  not  be  warranted  in  doing  so,  more  especially  if  I  should 
find,  at  the  same  time,  another  part  of  the  same  speech  cautiously 
omitted  in  that  one,  and  accurately  detailed  in  almost  all  the 
others  ?  I  refer,  Sir,  to  what  I  said,  in  the  same  speech,  about  the 
liberty  of  the  press.  I  said  that  the  libels  on  the  Duke  of  York 
had  been  so  frequent  and  so  flagrant,  "as  almost  to  make  good 
men  hesitate  whether  the  licentiousness  of  the  press  was  not  more 
mischievous  than  its  liberty  was  beneficial."  I  said  this,  it  is  true; 
but  in  the  same  breath  I  added,  "The  hesitation,  however,  can  be 
but  for  a  moment:  the  blessings  of  the  liberty  of  the  press  are  so 
clear  and  so  acknowledged,  as  far  to  outweigh  the  mischiefs  of  its 
abuse.     The  evil  is  transitory,  but  the  good  is  immortal." 

I  know,  Sir,  that  in  the  language  of  Parliament,  I  must  not  ad- 
vert to  considerations  which,  in  every  other  case,  and  before  eve- 
ry other  tribunal,  would  be  thought  worthy  of  some  attention. 
The  venerable  age,  the  infirmities,  and  the  virtues  of  the  royal 
person,  whose  heart  is  to  be  torn  by  this  Address,  are  surely  not 
to  be  overlooked  in  the  question  of  the  mere  form  of  your  pro- 
ceeding. I  do  not  say,  God  forbid!  that  these  considerations 
should  warp  the  decision;  but  surely  they  may  be  allowed, 
blamelessly  allowed;  to  operate  upon  the  manner  of  pronoun 
cing  it. 

It  was  stated  some  nights  ago,  with  as  much  truth  as  eloquence, 
that  we  owe  to  the  Sovereign  now  upon  the  throne,  not  only  that 
allegiance  and  duty  to  which  his  high  functions  entitle  him,  and 
which  the  institutions  of  the  country  prescribe  and  consecrate,  but 
we  owe  to  him,  eminently,  and  individually,  gratitude  for  the  pre- 
servation of  those  institutions  themselves.  Who  but  must  recol- 
lect the  time  when  the  minds  of  men  in  this  country  were  unset- 
tled by  the  first  shock  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  when  the 
wildness  of  theory  and  speculation  put  to  hazard  all  the  establish- 
ments of  the  state  ?  Who  but  must  recollect  that,  at  that  most  agi- 
tated and  alarming  period,  when  the  frame  of  our  constitution, 
the  whole  fabric  of  our  laws,  and  the  authority  of  Parliament  it- 
self, were  threatened  to  be  jostled  out  of  their  order,  and  laid  in 
ruins,  that  even  then,  amidst  the  conflicts  of  passion  and  the 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.  87 

schemes  of  change,  the  throne  was  kept  steady  by  the  virtues  of 
him  who  filled  it?  and  that  while  every  thing  else,  however  ven- 
erable, was  endangered,  the  monarchy  was  worshipped  in  the  per- 
son of  the  King? 

Of  such  an  individual  would  you  not  wish  to  spare  the  feelings? 
This  Address  itself  professes  to  intend  to  do  so.  With  what  del- 
icacy— 

Mr.  Tierney  said,  he  rose  to  call  the  right  honourable  gentleman  to  order, 
conceiving  he  was  using  the  King's  name  to  influence  the  House. 

Mr.  Canning. — Sir,  the  honourable  gentleman  has  interrupted 
me,  perhaps,  not  improperly.  I  feel  no  resentment  for  the  inter- 
ruption. Unquestionably,  the  argument  is  one  not  easy  to  man- 
age in  perfectly  strict  conformity  to  the  rules  and  orders  of  the 
House.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  has  a  right  to  enforce 
those  orders,  but  then  I  entreat  the  House  to  observe  in  what 
a  situation  he  places  me.  This  Address,  indeed,  both  Addresses, 
and  the  mode  of  proceeding  by  Address,  have  been  defended  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  proper  to  proceed  in  the  manner  least  inju- 
rious to  the  feelings  of  the  King.  The  Addresses  themselves 
contain  this  sentiment.  The  supporters  of  the  Addresses  have 
recommended  the  adoption  of  them  on  this  ground.  But  when  1 
proceed  to  examine  the  truth  of  the  statement  on  the  faith  of 
which  we  are  called  upon  to  vote;  when  I  presume  to  inquire 
how  far  the  Address  is  consistent  with  the  professed  purpose  of 
those  who  framed  it;  how  far  they  have  executed  their  own  in- 
tention, and  secured  their  own  object;  I  am  stopped  by  the  right 
honourable  gentleman,  who  tells  me  that  I  am  out  of  order.  The 
Addresses  are  praised  because  they  are  so  tender  of  the  King's 
feelings;  but  when  I  venture  to  describe  those  feelings,  and  to 
probe  this  professed  tenderness,  I  am  told  that  I  travel  on  forbid- 
den ground,  and  that  you,  Sir,  and  the  House  must  not  hear  me! 
Is  this  just?  With  this  topic,  however,  I  have  done. 

The  proceeding  by  Resolution  is  that  which  has  been  adopted 
in  almost  all  instances,  in  good  times,  from  that  of  the  Duke  of 
Marlborough,  down  to  the  last  instance,  in  the  case  of  Lord  Mel- 
ville. Of  Addresses,  not  cither  preceded  by  some  examination 
where  the  evidence  was  taken  on  oath,  or  not  founded  on  previous 
Resolution,  I  have  not  found  approved  instances.  I  have  found 
instances  enough  to  show  that  the  other  is  the  approved  parlia- 
mentary practice.  Why,  then,  should  we  depart  from  it,  on  the 
present  occasion?  Why  arc  we  to  do  this?  Because,  forsooth, 
there  is  a  public  expectation  awakened  of  some  immediate  and 
sweeping  act  of  wrath  and  vengeance  on  the  part  of  the  House  of 
Commons;  and  in  your  eagerness  to  gratify  that  expectation,  you 


88        CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK. 

must  refuse  to  listen  to  the  voice  of  justice  and  reason,  and  to  fol- 
low the  recorded  practice  of  good  times! 

I  would  fain  persuade  you  to  adhere  to  sound  precedent.  But, 
according  to  some  doctrines  of  this  day,  you  must  shut  your  ears 
to  every  thing  that  I,  or  any  one  in  my  situation,  can  say  to  you. 
For  we  have  heard  from  an  honourable  baronet,  (Sir  Francis  Bur- 
dett)  whose  usual  practice  it  is  to  impute  to  persons  in  office  all 
sorts  of  corruption  and  incapacity;  but  we  have  heard  it  not  from 
him  only;  he  has  been  followed  by  one  of  the  greatest  landed  pro- 
prietors among  us  (Mr.  Coke) — a  gentleman  who  seems  to  think 
that  he  derives  from  his  landed  property  a  degree  of  authority 
which  property  alone,  however  great,  cannot  confer — that  what 
comes  from  any  man  in  office,  on  this  or  any  other  subject,  is  not 
to  be  attended  to;  that  it  is  worth  nothing.  Sir,  from  whatever 
quarter  such  sentiments  proceed,  I  hear  them  with  scorn.  They 
disgrace  only  those  who  utter  them;  and  show  only  what  it  is  that 
they  who  are  capable  of  imputing  base  motives  to  others  would 
themselves  be,  if  they  were  in  official  situations. 

But,  however  I  may  despise  such  sentiments,  I  cannot  hear 
them  without  regret;  because  I  know  that  property,  in  times  like 
those  in  which  we  live,  has  need  of  all  the  protection  which  good 
order  and  good  government  can  give  it;  and  I  think  it  but  ill 
pleads  its  own  cause,  and  but  ill  provides  for  its  own  security, 
when  its  possessors  endeavour  to  instil  into  the  minds  of  the  peo- 
ple a  distrust,  not  of  this  or  that  individual,  but  of  the  whole  class 
and  description  of  public  men.  The  honourable  gentleman  who 
uttei*ed  this  sentiment  may  fancy  himself  safe,  in  the  extent  of  his 
possessions,  from  all  the  inconveniences  attending  popular  com- 
motion; but  let  him  not  think  that  the  destruction  of  the  authority 
of  Government,  and  the  degradation  (if  his  opinion  or  his  exer- 
tions could  effect  that  degradation)  of  all  those  who,  by  their  hab- 
its and  their  education,  are  qualified  for  public  life,  or  by  an  hon- 
ourable ambition  are  led  to  engage  in  it,  however  it  might  conduce 
to  the  aggrandizement  of  his  individual  importance  for  a  time, 
would,  in  the  end,  secure  the  stability  of  that  property  on  which 
he  founds  his  pretensions  to  pre-eminence. 

$fc  #  $£  V^:  7JC  ■$£  Ifc 

Whatever  our  decision  shall  be,  I  fear  not  for  the  character  of 
the  House  of  Commons.  The  confidence  which  I  feel  in  this  re- 
spect does  not  proceed  from  indifference.  I  deem  as  highly  of 
this  branch  of  the  constitution  as  any  man.  I  think  it  would  be 
difficult  to  point  out  the  individual  who  must,  from  every  motive 
of  education,  of  personal  feeling,  and,  I  hope,  not  dishonest  am- 
bition, be  more  sincerely  interested  in  the  honour  of  the  House 
of  Commons;  in  the  maintenance  of  its  honour  in  the  eyes  of  the 
country;  and  of  its  power,  its  preponderance  in  the  balance  of  the 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.        89 

state.  But  I  would  not  flatter  the  House  of  Commons  any  more 
than  I  would  offer  adulation  to  my  Sovereign.  I  would  not  be- 
tray either  into  an  abuse  of  power,  by  encouraging  either  to  mis- 
take power  for  right.  The  House  of  Commons,  acting  upon  this 
principle,  would  be  a  despot;  and  a  despot  whose  tyranny  would 
not  be  less  intolerable  than  that  of  a  single  tyrant.  It  is  not  every 
thing  which  the  House  of  Commons  can  do,  that  it,  therefore, 
ought  to  do.  It  is  not  because  it  has  the  power  to  sweep  from  his 
station  whomever  it  may  choose  to  sacrifice  to  its  displeasure,  that 
it  would  be  justified  in  condemning  the  Duke  of  York  either 
against  evidence  or  without  trial — in  condemning  him  upon  any 
other  principle  than  that  which  would  apply  equally  to  the  mean- 
est individual,  or  by  any  other  process  than  that  of  impartial  and 
dispassionate  justice. 

On  a  division,  the  numbers  were 

For  Mr.  Bankes's  Amendment       ....        199 
Against  it 294 

Majority  against  the  Amendment  95 

A  second  division  afterwards  took  place  on  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer's 
Amendment  on  Mr.  Wardle's  Address. 

For  the  Amendment 364 

For  the  original  motion 123 

Majority  in  favour  of  the  Duke  of  York  241 

Adjourned  at  half-past  six  o'clock  on  Thursday  morning. 


13  i 


-•■■ 


90 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

JANUARY  26th,  1810. 

On  the  26th  of  January,  1810,  Lord  Porchester  moved,  "  That  a  Committee 
be  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  policy  and  conduct  of  the  late  Expedition  to  the 
Scheldt." 


Mr.  Canning,  in  the  course  of  a  protracted  discussion  upon  this  motion,  said — 
That  under  the  circumstances  that  had  been  stated,  it  would  be  better  to  post- 
pone any  direct  motion  for  inquiry,  until  the  House  was  in  possession  of  the  in- 
formation which  Government  had  promised.  This  was  a  deference  which  he 
conceived  due  to  the  Government.  But  whatever  the  contents  of  these  papers 
might  be,  they  would  not  supersede  the  necessity  of  an  inquiry  of  some  kind. 
Inquiry  could  not  be  avoided,  it  must  take  place  sooner  or  later.  And  here  he 
would  take  the  opportunity  of  repelling  an  accusation  made  against  him,  that 
he  had  ever  entertained  any  wish  or  desire  that  all  the  facts  connected  with 
that  most  disgraceful  and  inglorious  business,  should  not  undergo  the  fullest  in- 
vestigation. No  inquiry  before  that  House,  or  any  selection  from  it,  he  feared, 
would  be  competent  to  embrace  the  misconduct,  supposing  any  imputable  to 
them,  of  the  commanders  of  the  Expedition.  The  case  was  different,  however, 
with  regard  to  the  share  that  Ministers  had  in  the  transaction.  If  blame  was 
imputable  to  the  plan  or  policy  of  the  Expedition  to  Walcheren,  he  had  nothing 
to  say  against  the  proposition  of  the  noble  lord,  (Porchester)  putting  in,  at 
the  same  time,  his  claim  to  a  full  share  of  the  responsibility  which  the  Gov- 
ernment that  set  it  forward  might  have  incurred.  He  foresaw  one  inconve- 
nience from  the  adoption  of  the  motion,  namely,  that  it  would  pledge  Par- 
liament to  a  particular  mode  of  inquiry;  a  mode  not  the  best  calculated,  in  his 
opinion,  to  attain  the  ends  which  it  proposed.  Upon  these  grounds,  he  thought 
it  would  be  best  to  wait  for  the  information  that  was  promised.  The  practical 
delay  would  be  but  small.  At  the  same  time  he  thought  that  papers  which 
were  mentioned  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  should  have  been  sooner  ready, 
and  that  not  a  moment  should  be  lost  in  preparing  the  way  for  that  public  and 
impartial  investigation,  which  no  man  in  the  House  was  more  desirous  than 
himself  to  see  instituted.  He  would  give  his  vote  against  the  motion  of  the 
noble  lord,  but  not  in  the  hope  of  defeating  inquiry,  which  could  not,  and  must 
not  be  avoided.     The  country  called  for  it ;  the  country  was  entitled  to  it. 

The  House  divided — 

For  Lord  Porchester's  motion        ...        195 
Against  it 186 

Majority  ....  9 


Lord  Porchester,  on  Friday,  the  second  of  February,  gave  notice  that  on 
the  Monday  following  he  would  move  that  certain  papers  relating  to  the  late 
Expedition  to  the  Scheldt  be  laid  before  the  House. 

Mr.  Canning  was  anxious  to  give  the  inquiry  the  greatest  possible  effect. 
He  had  formerly  suggested  the  propriety  of  referring  the  military  evidence  to 
other  tribunals,  and  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  it  would  have  been  better  so 
to  have  done.     He  would  state,  in  a  very  few  words,  what  he  thought  it  would 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  91 

be  most  becoming  the  House  to  inquire  into.  There  were  three  points  to  which 
he  thought  their  attention  should  be  directed.  The  first  was  the  policy  of  the 
Expedition.  This  was  the  most  extended  question,  since  it  comprehended  the 
situation  in  which  Great  Britain  was  placed  with  the  other  Powers  of  Europe. 
For  this  he  felt  himself  in  the  highest  degree  responsible.  The  military  and 
naval  proceedings,  though  he  viewed  them  with  the  most  favourable  eye,  he 
could  not  think  himself  responsible  for.  He  did  not  consider  himself  at  all  an- 
swerable for  the  evacuation  of  Walcheren ;  at  the  same  time,  while  saying 
this,  he  most  distinctly  desired  to  be  understood  as  not  giving  an  opinion  either 
the  one  way  or  the  other.  It  might  be,  that  the  House  would  be  of  opinion, 
that  blame  attached  itself  nowhere;  but  if  it  should  appear  that  blame  did  at- 
tach somewhere,  if  he  were  too  active  in  eliciting  discoveries  to  the  prejudice 
of  others,  it  might  appear  that  he  wished  to  throw  the  blame  off  himself,  by 
placing  the  misconduct  of  others  in  a  most  luminous  point  of  view.  He  would 
therefore  punctually  give  his  attendance  throughout  the  inquiry,  and  give  every 
explanation  of  his  own  conduct;  but  it  was  his  intention  to  avoid  as  much  as 
possible  taking  an  active  part,  where  he  was  not  personally  concerned. 

The  House  then,  on  the  motion  of  Lord  Porchester,  resolved  itself  into  the 
committee,  to  consider  the  policy  and  conduct  of  the  Expedition  to  the  Scheldt. 

Mr.  Yorke  moved  the  standing  order  for  the  exclusion  of  strangers,  which 
was,  of  course,  enforced,  and  the  gallery  cleared.  Minutes  were  taken  of  the 
evidence  given  before  the  committee,  which  contained  the  examination  of  wit- 
nesses, from  the  2d  of  February  to  the  10th  of  March. 


Lord  Porchester,  on  the  26th  of  March,  moved  the  following  Resolu- 
tions:— 

"  1. — That  on  the  28th  of  July  last,  and  subsequent  days,  an  armament,  con- 
sisting of  thirty  thousand  land  forces,  thirty-seven  sail  of  the  line,  two  ships  of 
fifty,  three  of  forty-four  guns,  twenty-four  frigates,  thirty-one  sloops,  five  bomb 
vessels,  and  twenty-three  gun  brigs,  sailed  on  the  late  Expedition  to  the  Scheldt, 
having  for  its  object  the  capture  or  destruction  of  the  enemy's  ships,  either 
building  at  Antwerp  or  Flushing,  or  afloat  on  the  Scheldt,  the  destruction  of 
the  arsenals  and  dock  yards  at  Antwerp,  Torneux,  and  Flushing;  the  reduction 
of  the  island  of  Walcheren,  and  the  rendering,  if  possible,  the  Scheldt  no  lon- 
ger navigable  for  ships  of  war. 

*2. — That  Flushing-  surrendered  on  the  15th  of  August,  whereby  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  island  of  Walcheren  was  completed;  and  that  on  the  27th  of  Au- 
gust, all  attempts  on  the  fleet  and  arsenals  of  the  enemy  at  Antwerp  were,  by 
the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  lieutenant-generals,  declared  to  be  impracticable, 
and  were  abandoned. 

»3. — That  the  destruction  of  the  basin,  dock  yard,  arsenal,  magazines,  and 
naval  store-houses  of  the  town  of  Flushing,  and  of  such  part  of  the  sea  de- 
fences as  it  was  found  proper  to  destroy,  having  been  effected  on  the  11th  of 
December,  the  island  of  Walcheren  was  on  the  23d  of  December  evacuated  by 
His  Majesty's  forces,  and  the  Expedition  ended. 

"4. — That  it  does  not  appear  to  this  House,  that  the  failure  of  this  Expedi- 
tion is  imputable  to  the  conduct  of  the  army  or  the  navy  in  the  execution  of 
their  instructions,  relative  to  the  military  and  naval  operations  in  the  Scheldt. 

"  5. — That  on  the  19th  of  August  a  malignant  disorder  showed  itself  amongst 
His  Majesty's  troops;  and  that,  on  the  sth  of  September,  the  number  of  sick 
amounted  to  upwards  of  ten  thousand  nine  hundred  and  forty-eight  men. 

"6 — That  it  appears  by  the  report  of  the  physician  appointed  to  investigate 
the  nature  and  the  causes  of  the  malady  to  which  His  Majesty's  troops  were 
thus  exposed,  that  the  disease  is  one  which  prevails  periodically  in  the  islands 
of  Zealand,  and  is  of  peculiar  malignity  there,  and  which  constantly  follows  a 


92  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

law  of  season,  appearing  towards  the  end  of  summer,  becoming  more  severe  in 
the  autumnal  months,  declining  in  October,  and  nearly  ceasing  in  November. 
That  perfect  recoveries  are  rare,  convalescence  never  secure ;  and  that  the  re- 
currence of  fever  quickly  lays  the  foundation  of  complaints  which  render  a 
large  portion  of  the  sufferers  inefficient  for  future  military  purposes. 

u  7. — That  of  the  army  which  embarked  for  service  in  the  Scheldt,  sixty  of- 
ficers and  three  thousand  nine  hundred  men,  exclusive  of  those  killed  by  the 
enemy,  had  died  before  the  1st  of  February  last,  and  on  that  day  two  hundred 
and  seventeen  officers,  and  eleven  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty-nine  men 
were  reported  sick. 

«8. — That  the  Expedition  to  the  Scheldt  was  undertaken  under  circum- 
stances which  afforded  no  rational  hope  of  adequate  success,  and  at  the  precise 
season  of  the  year  when  the  malignant  disease  which  has  proved  so  fatal  to  His 
Majesty's  brave  troops  was  known  to  be  most  prevalent;  and  that  the  advisers 
of  this  ill-judged  enterprise  are,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  deeply  responsible 
for  the  heavy  calamities  with  which  its  failure  has  been  attended." 

There  was  also  a  second  set  of  resolutions,  as  follows,  relating  to  the  reten- 
tion of  the  island  of  Walcheren : — 

"  1. — That  Lieutenant-General  Sir  Eyre  Coote  having,  on  the  9th  of  Sep- 
tember, been  left  in  command  of  Walcheren,  with  an  army  of  about  fifteen 
thousand  men,  did,  on  that  day,  make  an  official  report  on  the  state  of  the  isl- 
and, the  extent  of  force  required  effectually  to  guard  it,  the  nature  and  condi- 
tion of  its  defences,  and  the  number  of  men  then  sick  and  unfit  for  duty;  rep- 
resenting that  after  such  his  exposition,  His  Majesty's  Ministers  would  be  the 
best  judges  of  the  propriety  or  possibility  of  keeping  the  island ;  and  adding, 
that  the  advantages  must  be  great  indeed  which  could  compensate  the  loss  of 
lives  and  treasure  which  the  retention  must  necessarily  occasion. 

»2. — That  on  the  23d  of  September,  Sir  Eyre  Coote  stated  to  His  Majesty's 
Ministers,  that  the  alarming  progress  of  disease  was  such,  that  if  it  should  con- 
tinue in  the  same  proportion  for  three  weeks  longer,  (as  he  added  there  was 
every  probability  that  it  would,)  our  possession  of  the  island  must  become  very 
precarious. 

"  3.— That  on  the  6th  of  October,  Sir  Eyre  Coote,  after  stating  that  the  num- 
ber of  sick  was  increasing,  and  that  the  effective  force  was  thereby  rendered 
so  trivial,  as  to  make  the  defence  of  the  island,  if  it  should  be  attacked,  ex- 
tremely precarious,  did  express  his  anxiety  to  be  informed  of  the  intentions  of 
His  Majesty's  Government  as  to  the  future  state  of  Walcheren. 

"  4. — That  notwithstanding  these,  and  many  other  pressing  representations, 
on  the  alarming  condition  of  the  troops,  and  the  danger  to  which  they  were 
exposed,  His  Majesty's  Ministers  did  neglect  to  come  to  any  decision  until  the 
4th  of  November,  and  that  the  final  evacuation  of  Walcheren  did  not  take  place 
until  the  23d  of  December. 

"  5. — That  on  the  10th  of  September,  the  number  of  sick  in  the  island  of 
Walcheren  was,  exclusive  of  officers,  six  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirty- 
eight  ;  and  that  the  total  number  of  sick  embarked  for  England  between  the 
15th  of  September  and  the  16th  of  November,  was  eleven  thousand  one  hun- 
dred and  ninety-nine,  making  in  that  period  an  increase  of  sick  of  four  thou- 
sand two  hundred  and  sixty-eight. 

"  6. — That  although  the  great  object  of  the  Expedition  had  been  abandoned 
as  impracticable,  a  large  proportion  of  the  British  army  was  (without  any  ur- 
gent or  determined  purpose  in  view,  or  any  prospect  of  national  advantage  to 
justify  such  a  hazard,  or  to  compensate  such  a  sacrifice)  left  by  His  Majesty's 
Ministers  to  the  imminent  danger  of  attack  from  the  enemy,  and  exposed 
during  a  period  of  more  than  three  months,  and  under  circumstances  of  ag- 
gravated hardships,  to  ihe  fatal  ravages  of  a  disease,  which  on  the  31st  of  Au- 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  93 

gust  had  been  officially  announced  to  be  daily  increasing  to  a  most  alarming 
degree. 

"  7 — That  such  the  conduct  of  His  Majesty's  advisers  calls  for  the  severest 
censure  of  this  House." 


THURSDAY,  MARCH  29th. 

The  House  of  Commons  was  engaged  four  nights  in  the  discussion  of  the 
above  Resolutions.  In  the  course  of  the  adjourned  debate  upon  them,  on  the 
third  night  of  the  discussion,  after  Mr.  Grattan  had  delivered  a  speech  of  great 
eloquence,  in  vehement  condemnation  of  the  Expedition, 

Mr.  Canning  rose  and  said: — The  right  honourable  gentleman 
(Mr.  Grattan,)  who  has  just  sat  down,  has  concluded  his  speech 
with  a  declaration,  that  the  calamities  brought  upon  the  country 
by  the  failure  of  the  Expedition  to  the  Scheldt,  ought  to  be  visit- 
ed with  exemplary  severity  upon  the  heads  of  those  by  whom 
that  Expedition  was  planned  and  advised.  Now,  Sir,  as  one  of 
the  advisers  of  the  Expedition,  I  rise,  not  only  to  speak  in  justi- 
fication of  it,  but  to  contend,  and  I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  contend 
successfully,  that,  in  advising  that  measure,  His  Majesty's  Min- 
isters were  actuated  by  a  just  sense  of  their  public  duty;  that  they 
proceeded  upon  motives  and  principles,  such  as,  if  I  were  not  my- 
self a  party  concerned  in  the  transaction,  I  should  not  scruple  to 
assert,  entitled  them  to  the  approbation  of  their  country;  and  such 
as  they  may  confidently  recommend  to  whoever  may  be  hereafter 
their  successors  in  office.  They  are  principles,  which,  in  what- 
ever hands  the  administration  may  be  placed,  must  necessarily  be 
adopted  and  acted  upon,  if  the  cause  of  the  country  is  to  be  main- 
tained. 

For,  Sir,  in  estimating  the  merits  of  the  great  public  measure 
now  under  our  consideration,  we  must  not  be  contented  to  look 
upon  it  as  a  mere  insulated  question,  wc  must  regard  it  as  a  branch 
of  that  general  system  of  policy  and  action  which  has  been  pur- 
sued throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  present  war,  and  which 
has  been  invariably  directed  to  the  twofold  object  of  preserving 
other  nations  from  the  domination  of  France,  and  insuring  the  in- 
tegrity and  independence  of  the  British  empire. 

It  cannot,  I  apprehend,  require  any  aid  of  argument  to  prove 
to  this  House  the  deep  and  vital  interest  that  we  have  in  the  lat- 
ter object;  neither  do  I  think  it  difficult  to  show,  that,  in  the 
former,  though  our  interest  may  be  less  direct  and  immediate,  we 
have,  nevertheless,  an  interest  sufficiently  strong  to  keep  that  ob- 
ject constantly  in  our  view,  and  as  strong  an  obligation  to  employ 
all  the  means  in  our  power  for  its  accomplishment  While  Great 
Britain  stands  so  pre-eminently  high  amongst  the  nations  of  Eu- 
rope, she  owes  it  as  a  duty  to  her  own  dignity  and  character  to 


94  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

assist  and  protect  weaker  nations  against  oppression,  not  only  so 
far  as  that  can  be  done  consistently  with  her  own  interests,  but,  I 
would  rather  say,  so  far  as  is  not  absolutely  incompatible  with  her 
own  security.  True  it  undoubtedly  is,  that  of  those  nations, 
which,  in  different  periods  of  the  war,  manifested  a  spirit  of  re- 
sistance against  the  encroachments  or  oppression  of  France,  and 
to  whose  support  this  country  has  contributed  generously  and 
promptly  every  aid  and  effort  in  her  power;  true  it  undoubtedly 
is,  and  not  more  true  than  it  is  deeply  to  be  lamented,  that  the 
course  and  consequences  of  the  war  have  been  such  as  to  place 
many  of  those  nations,  in  successive  periods,  at  the  mercy  and  un- 
der the  control  of  the  enemy.  We  have  been  in  the  situation  of 
fighting  not  against  the  power  of  France  alone,  but  against  those 
countries,  to  which  we  have  heretofore  furnished  our  assistance, 
but  which,  ranged  by  concmest  on  the  side  of  France,  have, 
whilst  their  hearts  must  be  for  us,  been  compelled  by  a  dire  ne- 
cessity to  raise  their  hands  against  us.  It  does  not  therefore  fol- 
low that  the  principle  of  continental  co-operation  is  unwise;  or 
that  our  generosity  has  been  detrimental  to  our  interest.  The  de- 
struction of  the  efforts  of  the  enemy,  the  suspension  of  immediate 
danger  to  ourselves,  and  the  chances  afforded  by  the  protraction 
of  that  period  at  the  expiration  of  which  we  may  probably  have 
to  contend  for  our  own  safety  on  our  own  soil — these  are  sufficient 
advantages  to  be  derived  from  our  efforts  in  behalf  of  other  na- 
tions, even  if  we  were  to  put  out  of  account  the  higher  considera- 
tions of  national  reputation  and  national  faith.  But  considering 
at  the  same  time  that  the  period  of  this  separate  combat  may  ar- 
rive— that  the  successive  wars  of  the  continent  may  probably 
enough,  (if  the  power  of  France  continues  unbroken)  be  extin- 
guished and  swallowed  up  in  one  great  war  of  the  continent  against 
this  country — that  this  consummation  (though  it  may  be  deferred, 
and  though  to  defer  it  be  worth  every  practicable  exertion)  yet 
cannot,  perhaps,  ultimately  he  avoided;  I  do  admit  that  in  all 
measures  of  co-operation  with  the  Powers  of  the  continent,  we 
ought  not  to  lose  sight  of  our  own  separate  security 

The  prospective  apprehension  of  these  distant  and  contingent 
dangers  to  ourselves,  ought  not  to  induce  us  to  withhold  or  to  re- 
lax our  efforts  for  others:  their  speedier  downfall  would  but  has- 
ten the  crises  to  our  struggle.  It  ought  not  to  make  us  distrust  the 
sincerity  of  their  efforts  in  their  own  cause.  They  may  be,  it  is 
true,  hereafter  (as  many  of  them  already  have  been)  found  to  act 
against  us;  but  their  hostility  to  us  must  be  preceded  by  their  own 
ruin;  and  we  may  well  believe  it  their  desire  to  avoid  an  extremi- 
ty which  cannot  be  hurtful  to  us,  till  it  has  first  been  fatal  to 
themselves.  But  we  may  naturally  and  justifiably  endeavour, 
nay,  we  are  bound  on  every  principle  of  sound  policy  to  endea- 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  95 

vour,  to  combine  in  all  our  continental  measures,  with  the  con- 
sideration of  what  is  immediately  useful  to  others,  that  of  what 
may  be  ultimately  not  prejudicial  to  ourselves.  It  is  good  to  be 
generous  to  others.  But  to  ourselves  also  we  owe  a  duty  of  self- 
preservation;  and  that  measure  is  the  most  prudent,  the  most  suit- 
able, and  the  most  advantageous,  which,  while  it  advances  the 
common  cause,  in  the  first  instance,  does  so  in  a  manner  con- 
sistent with  our  own  permanent  security,  which  gives  strength 
to  the  combined  efforts  of  our  allies,  and  at  the  same  time  fortifies 
us  for  the  separate  contest  which  we  may  have  to  carry  on  here- 
after, unaided  and  alone.  Upon  these  grounds  the  King's  Minis- 
ters acted  in  advising  the  late  expedition:  and  by  these  principles 
I  desire  that  measure  may  be  tried.  The  House  then  will  see  that 
I  must  disclaim  altogether  one  mode  of  argument  by  which  the 
Expedition  has  been  condemned — that  of  estimating  it  solely  by 
its  utility  as  a  diversion  in  favour  of  Austria.  That  it  had  that 
effect,  that  it  was  calculated  to  have  that  effect,  and  that  that  was 
of  itself  a  most  important  object,  is  true.  It  is  true,  that  when 
Austria  had  taken  up  arms  against  France,  and  was  likely  to  fur- 
nish employment  for  the  great  mass  of  the  French  army,  this 
country  was  bound  to  afford  every  possible  assistance  to  that  Pow- 
er, not  only  from  the  recollection  of  past  alliance,  but  from  a 
strong  sense  of  common  interest.  But  the  question  still  remained, 
in  what  manner  that  assistance  could  be  afforded  most  convenient- 
ly for  us,  as  well  as  most  advantageously  for  Austria;  how  the 
application  of  any  British  force  might  be  rendered  at  once  most 
beneficial  to  the  cause  of  Austria,  and  conducive,  or  at  least  not 
detrimental,  to  the  permanent  security  of  this  country.  The  Ex- 
pedition to  the  Scheldt,  therefore,  as  it  is  not  to  be  considered  on 
the  one  hand,  as  having  been  undertaken  for  an  object  purely  sel- 
fish on  our  part,  so  is  it  not  to  be  judged,  in  its  result,  by  consid- 
erations exclusively  connected  witli  the  cause  and  the  interests 
of  Austria.  It  must  be  viewed  with  reference  to  both  these  ob- 
jects; and  when  so  viewed,  I  am  persuaded  that  it  will  appear  to 
every  reflecting  mind,  to  have  been  not  only  wisely  planned, 
but  the  very  best  measure  that,  all  things  considered,  could  at 
the  time  have   been  undertaken. 

It  appears  by  the  papers  upon  the  table,  that  the  project  of  an 
Expedition  to  the  Scheldt  did  not  originate  in  the  Austrian  war. 
Undoubtedly  it  did  not.  An  attack  upon  Walcheren  was  not  a 
novel  project  with  the  Government  of  this  country.  It  had  been 
frequently,  for  many  years  past,  in  the  contemplation  of  the. 
British  Cabinet  It  neither  grew  out  of  the  Austrian  war,  there- 
fore, nor  did  it  originate  with  the  particular  administration  by 
which  it  was  undertaken.  The  measure  had  been  meditated  and 
discussed  by  several  successive  administrations,  when  the  tempta- 


96  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

tions  were  much  less,  and  the  difficulties  much  greater  than  at  the 
period  now  in  question.  The  importance  of  the  object  had  grown 
with  the  growing  naval  strength  of  the  enemy  in  that  quarter;  and 
never  had  any  occasion  at  once  so  favourable  and  so  urgent  pre- 
sented itself  for  such  an  enterprise,  as  that  which  occurred  at  the 
time  when  the  late  armament  was  fitted  out.  Nothing  can  be 
farther  from  my  thoughts  than  any  intention  to  apply  the  circum- 
stance, which  I  am  now  about  to  mention,  in  the  way  of  recrimi- 
nation against  the  honourable  gentleman  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  House;  but  I  am  almost  sure  that  it  must  be  in  their  recollec- 
tion as  it  is  in  mine,  that  the  noble  lord  whom  I  had  the  honour 
to  succeed  in  the  office  which  I  lately  held  in  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment, and  to  whose  talents  and  sagacity  I  am  disposed  to  pay 
every  imaginable  respect,  did,  in  a  debate  which  took  place  very 
soon  after  the  change  of  the  Administration,  of  which  he  formed 
so  distinguished  a  part  (a  debate  which,  from  one  of  those  circum- 
stances that  sometimes  prevent  our  discussions  from  being  known 
without  our  walls,  was  never  made  public,)  did  strongly  recom- 
mend to  the  Government  then  newly  come  into  office,  a  vigilant 
attention  to  the  growing  naval  means  of  the  enemy  in  the  Scheldt; 
that  he  described  the  accumulated  facilities  of  annoyance  afforded 
to  Buonaparte  by  the  possession  of  the  mouths  and  the  course  of 
that  river,  and  particularly  pointed  out  the  arsenal  at  Antwerp,  as 
the  most  desirable  and  advantageous  object  of  attack  on  any  favour- 
able occasion.  In  giving  this  advice, — in  leaving  this  legacy, — in 
bequeathing  this  testamentary  sanction  for  such  an  operation  to  his 
successors,  that  noble  lord  discharged  a  solemn  duty,  and  gave  a 
proof  of  his  patriotism  as  well  as  of  his  wisdom.  Even  in  the 
then  state  of  the  enemy's  naval  resources  in  the  Scheldt,  he  con- 
sidered it  as  an  object  of  wakeful  and  anxious  jealousy  and  alarm 
to  the  Government  of  this  country.  I  have,  therefore,  that  noble 
lord's  authority,  I  do  not  say  for  the  precise  detail  and  plan  of  this 
Expedition,  but  for  the  principle  and  object  of  it,  for  seizing  the 
earliest  opportunity  to  effect  the  destruction,  if  possible,  of  the 
enemy's  naval  force  and  arsenals  in  the  Scheldt.  I  have  the  au- 
thority of  that  noble  lord,  who  had  successively  filled  the  two  de- 
partments of  the  state  that  best  qualified  him  to  judge  of  this  ques- 
tion, the  Admiralty,  and  the  office  in  which  I  had  the  honour  to  suc- 
ceed him — first,  for  the  importance  of  the  object,  and,  in  the  second 
place,  for  the  practicability  of  the  undertaking,  or,  at  least,  the  jus- 
tifiableness  of  the  risk.  And,  if  such  were  the  noble  lord's  opin- 
ions at  the  period  to  which  I  refer,  I  will  ask  any  honourable  gen- 
tleman what  was  then  the  state  of  Antwerp;  what  was  its  real  im- 
portance at  the  time  when  that  noble  lord  bequeathed  this  warning 
to  his  successors,  compared  with  its  condition  and  importance  at 
the  period  when  the  Expedition  was  actually  undertaken?     It 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  97 

must  be  quite  unnecessary  to  recal  to  the  recollection  of  the 
House  the  active  and  unceasing  attention  which  Buonaparte  had, 
during  the  whole  of  the  intervening  time,  paid  to  his  navy,  and 
the  boasts  which  he  uniformly  held  out  to  Europe  of  his  growing 
naval  power.  To  check  the  growth  of  that  power  was  surely  an 
object  well  worth  every  eflfort;  and  worth  that  which  must  attend 
every  effort  upon  a  large  scale — the  hazard  of  failure.  It  was  an 
object,  the  success  of  which,  if  viewed  in  its  effect  upon  the  gen- 
eral scale  of  the  war,  would  have  been  important  in  the  highest 
degree,  as  lowering  the  pride  and  naval  power  of  the  enemy; 
viewed  in  its  relation  to  the  maritime  war  between  this  country 
and  France,  it  was  equally  recommended  by  every  consideration 
of  national  pride,  of  safety,  and  of  economy.  The  destruction  of 
the  arsenals  in  the  Scheldt  might  have  spared  us  the  necessity  of  a 
fleet  in  the  Downs  or  of  a  fleet  at  Yarmouth,  and  either  left  that 
amount  of  naval  force  disposable  for  other  services,  or  enabled  us 
by  such  retrenchment  the  more  effectually  to  aid  our  allies,  or 
the  better  to  support  the  burden  of  a  protracted  warfare.  Inde- 
pendently, therefore,  of  any  consideration  of  the  Austrian  war,  an 
Expedition  to  the  Scheldt  was  perhaps  the  effort  best  calculated  to 
promote  the  essential  interests  of  Great  Britain. 

I  have  thus  briefly  stated  the  general  grounds  upon  which  the 
Expedition  was  first  resolved  upon,  and  by  which,  of  themselves, 
that  resolution  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  altogether  justified. 
Then  came  the  Austrian  war,  and  then  came  urgent  applications 
from  Austria  for  assistance — applications  which,  indeed,  were 
scarcely  necessary,  because  we  were  called  upon,  by  every  prin- 
ciple of  the  most  obvious  policy,  and  every  consideration  of  the 
strongest  self-interest,  to  afford  to  her  in  her  arduous  and  critical 
struggle,  all  the  succour  and  support  in  our  power.  With  this 
disposition,  the  question  which  first  arose  was,  how  the  assistance 
which  we  were  both  bound  and  willing  to  afford,  could  be  ren- 
dered most  effectual  in  suppopl  of  the  cause  of  Austria.  And  I 
can  confidently  aver,  that  if,  in  the  state  in  which  our  determina- 
tion then  was,  in  respect  to  the  Scheldt,  any  other  destination 
could  have  been  pointed  out  for  an  Expedition,  more  obviously 
serviceable  to  Austria,  and  affording  an  equal  or  a  reasonable  pros- 
pect of  success,  the  superior  interest  which  this  country  had  in 
the  success  of  an  attack  upon  the  Scheldt,  would  not  alone  have 
determined  us  against  a  change  of  destination.  If  other  consid- 
erations were  equally  balanced,  the  obvious  and  essential  interests 
of  this  country  might  fairly  be  allowed  to  turn  the  scale.  But 
not  only  was  there  no  other  destination  pointed  out  in  which 
Austria  might  be  more  effectually  aided,  and  which  it  was  neces- 
sary to  sacrifice  to  our  preconceived  partiality  for  the  Scheldt;  but 
I  will  venture  to  say,  that  after  a  full  and  fair  consideration  of 
14  k 


98  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

every  suggestion  which  was  offered  to  us,  there  was  no  one  point 
to  which,  an  Expedition  could  have  gone,  which,  exclusively  of 
the  separate  interests  of  this  country,  could,  from  its  general  im- 
portance, policy,  and  practicability,  be  placed  in  competition  with 
the  capture  and  destruction  of  Antwerp.  There  are  obviously 
two  modes  of  aiding  the  efforts  of  an  ally:  the  one  to  support  him 
by  direct  co-operation  with  his  armies  in  the  field;  the  other,  by 
a  formidable  diversion,  to  distract  the  attention  of  the  enemy,  and 
to  relieve  our  ally  from  some  part  of  the  pressure  of  the  vast  mil- 
itary force  concentrated  against  him.  I  should  certainly  not  have 
thought  it  necessary  to  establish  by  argument  the  impracticability 
of  a  direct  military  co-operation  with  Austria,  in  the  situation  to 
which  the  Continent  was  at  that  period  reduced,  if  I  had  not 
heard  some  of  the  honourable  gentlemen  opposite  contend  that 
we  should  have  sent  our  Expedition  to  the  bottom  of  the  Adriatic, 
to  Trieste,  in  order  to  act  in  conjunction  with  the  Austrians;  I 
know  not  exactly  where,  but  I  suppose  by  penetrating  through 
the  Tyrol  to  Suabia:  an  idea  so  utterly  extravagant  and  absurd, 
that  the  mention  of  it  has  filled  me  with  amazement.  Have  the 
honourable  gentlemen  who  expressed  their  approbation  of  such  a 
plan,  reflected  upon  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  sending  a  fleet 
of  transports,  crowded  with  troops,  upon  such  a  voyage,  through 
the  streights  of  Gibraltar,  along  the  Mediterranean,  and  up  the 
Adriatic,  to  a  destination,  at  which  it  might  arrive  three  or  four 
months  after  it  sailed,  and  two  or  three  months  after  the  junction 
for  which  it  was  sent  out  was  no  longer  either  useful  or  attainable  ? 
Have  they  considered  the  enormous  preparations,  the  immense  ton- 
nage, and  the  inordinate  expenditure  which  it  would  have  required 
to  place  an  army  in  a  situation  to  take  the  field  after  such  a  voyage, 
at  such  a  distance,  and  in  countries  so  little  prepared  to  receive  us? 
With  respect  to  the  other  mode  of  direct  co-operation — the  land- 
ing with  a  British  force  in  Lower  Italy — it  is  only  necessary  to 
state,  that  that  experiment  was  tried  to  a  certain  extent,  and  was 
only  desisted  from  wdien  it  was  incontestably  found,  that  the  fur- 
ther prosecution  of  it  was  useless,  in  consequence  of  the  retreat  of 
the  Archduke  John,  with  whose  operations  alone  those  of  Sir 
John  Stuart  could  have  been  combined.  And  how  would  this 
same  retreat  have  operated  upon  the  notable  Expedition  to  Trieste, 
if  unfortunately  it  had  been  adopted?  Why,  the  consequence,  it 
appears,  would  have  been,  that  our  armament  on  its  arrival  at 
Trieste,  would  have  found  the  French  in  possession  of  that  place, 
and  no  Austrian  army  or  military  force  within  three  hundred 
miles  of  it.  And  then  what  mercy  should  we  have  found  at  the 
hands  of  our  present  accusers,  if  we  had  pleaded  that,  when  the 
Expedition  sailed,  forsooth,  we  had  every  reason  to  think  that  it 
would  be  in  time  ? 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  99 

I  must,  however,  beg  leave  in  this  place  to  state,  in  justice  to 
the  Austrian  Government,  that  the  idea  of  requiring  us  to  send 
out  a  British  force  to  Trieste,  never  entered  into  their  contempla- 
tion. Austria  unquestionably  did,  as  was  naturally  to  be  expect- 
ed, point  out  several  modes,  by  which  the  force  of  this  country 
could  be  employed;  but  never  hinted  at,  still  less  recommended, 
the  impracticable  scheme  of  an  Expedition  to  Trieste. 

The  points,  to  which  Austria  did  propose  to  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  direct  its  attention,  were  distinctly  and  specifically 
these — 1st,  that  an  attempt  should  be  made  by  a  British  force  upon 
Italy;  2dly,  that  our  operations  in  the  Peninsula  should  be  con- 
tinued; and  3dly,  that  we  should  endeavour  to  operate  a  diversion 
in  her  favour,  by  landing  an  army  in  the  north  of  Germany. 
These  were  the  propositions  actually  made  and  strongly  urged  by 
the  Austrian  Government.  With  respect  to  the  first,  an  attack  on 
the  side  of  Italy,  I  have  already  stated  that  such  an  attempt  was 
made,  and  that  it  only  was  desisted  from  when  a  perseverance  in 
it  on  our  part,  could  no  longer  be  productive  of  any  benefit  to  the 
cause  of  Austria.  As  to  the  second  proposition,  the  continuance 
of  our  efforts  in  the  Peninsula,  I  need  scarcely  observe,  that  the 
British  Government  has  fully  complied  with  the  desire  of  Austria 
in  this  respect,  because  every  gentleman  who  hears  me  must  be 
aware  that  our  operations  in  the  Peninsula,  so  far  from  having 
been  slackened  or  suspended,  were  pursued  with  unremitting  ear- 
nestness and  exertion. 

It  remains  only  to  consider  the  third  and  last  point,  recom- 
mended by  Austria  for  the  employment  of  a  British  force,  name- 
ly, the  north  of  Germany.  Gentlemen  have  dwelt  with  much 
emphasis  upon  the  great  advantages  which  would  have  been  de- 
rived in  aid  of  such  an  Expedition  from  the  insurrections  then 
known  to  exist  in  that  quarter,  and  from  the  spirit  of  disaffection 
so  prevalent  throughout  the  whole  of  the  population  of  Germany, 
which  the  first  success  of  the  British  arms  would  have  called  forth 
into  active  and  universal  hostility  against  the  common  enemy. 
But  I  have  always  been  of  opinion,  and  have  had  occasion,  more 
than  once,  to  declare  that  opinion  in  this  House,  that  to  excite 
such  insurrections,  without  having  the  means  of  affording  effectual 
permanent  protection  to  the  insurgents,  is  an  act  of  the  greatest 
cruelty  as  well  as  impolicy. 

Undoubtedly  such  insurrections,  however  temporary,  might 
possibly  have  operated  for  the  moment  as  a  partial  relief  to  Aus- 
tria, by  drawing  off  a  portion  of  Buonaparte's  troops,  or  detaining 
the  reinforcements  destined  for  his  army  on  the  Danube.  But 
that  advantage  would  ;dso  belong  to  the  Expedition  to  the  Scheldt. 
So,  therefore,  the  two  rival  destinations  might  be  considered  as 
equal.      They  were  then  to  he;  compared  as  to  their  respective 


100  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

probabilities  of  success.  Supposing  these  probabilities  equal  also, 
then,  and  then  only,  would  be  to  be  considered  the  balance  of  ad- 
vantage to  this  country  in  favour  of  the  Scheldt.  But  supposing 
the  failure  in  Germany  the  more  likely,  how  would  the  evil  of  that 
failure  be  aggravated  by  the  miseries  which  it  would  bring  upon 
the  unfortunate  people  who  had  been  induced  to  join  us!  Gentle- 
men declaim  against  the  Expedition  to  the  Scheldt,  merely  be- 
cause the  objects  of  that  Expedition,  the  capture  of  ships,  and  the 
destruction  of  naval  arsenals,  fix  upon  it  the  suspicion  of  a  selfish 
motive.  They  appear  to  me  to  carry  a  principle,  good  in  itself, 
much  too  far.  Whenever  any  partial  or  temporary  interest  of  our 
own  clashes  with  a  permanent  and  vital  interest  of  an  ally,  our 
temporary  interest  ought  certainly  to  give  way;  but  to  put  our 
own  interests  of  any  description  altogether  out  of  view,  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  a  possible  imputation  of  selfishness 
from  a  perverse  construction  of  our  motives,  would  be  absurd  and 
romantic  in  the  extreme.  At  all  events,  let  those  who  feel  such 
an  extreme  delicacy  on  this  point  consent  to  carry  that  delicacy 
a  little  further,  and  apply  it  where  it  is  at  least  equally  applicable, 
to  the  case  of  those  districts  of  Germany,  which  the  approach  of 
a  British  army  would  have  roused  to  insurrection,  and  which  its 
retreat  would  leave  to  the  vengeance  of  their  oppressors;  and  let 
them  consider  whether  a  temporary  success  to  our  own  arms,  or 
a  partial  relief  to  Austria,  would  have  been  legitimately  purchased 
by  such  a  sacrifice  of  those  whom  we  pretended  to  deliver,  but 
should,  in  truth,  by  such  a  course  betray. 

If  indeed  we  could  have  hoped  to  effect  their  permanent  de- 
liverance, the  case  would  have  been  widely  different.  In  that 
case  the  north  of  Germany  would  unquestionable  have  been  the 
chosen  scene  of  our  exertions.  But  what  was  the  chance  of  such 
success? 

No  long  period  has  elapsed  since  a  British  army  was  actually 
sent  to  the  north  of  Germany  to  co-operate  against  France,  and 
it  has  been  attempted  to  be  argued,  that  those  who  were  par- 
ties to,  or  who  approved  the  sending  out  that  former  Expedi- 
tion (which  arrived  in  Germany  just  in  time  to  learn  the  issue 
of  the  fatal  battle  of  Austerlitz,)  could  have  no  possible  justifica- 
tion, for  not  having  sent  the  late  Expedition  to  the  same  destina- 
tion. But  here  I  must  beg  of  gentlemen  to  consider  the  differ- 
ence in  the  situation  of  affairs  at  these  different  periods;  and  to  com- 
pare the  state  of  Europe  at  the  time  when  the  former  armament 
was  sent  to  the  north  of  Germany,  with  the  situation  to  which 
it  had  been  reduced  at  the  period  when  the  Expedition  to  the 
Scheldt  was  undertaken.  On  the  former  occasion  a  formidable 
Russian  army  was  combatting,  in  support  of  the  Austrian  raon- 
•chy;  and,  with  the  Emperor  at  its  head,  was  already  partici- 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  101 

pating  in  the  main  operations  of  the  campaign:  another  Russian 
force  of  fifteen  thousand  men  was  advancing  in  the  north;  and 
with  a  corps  of  fifteen  thousand  Swedes  was  ready  to  take  the 
field  in  conjunction  with  our  expedition.  Denmark  was  neutral; 
the  power  of  Prussia  was  whole  and  unbroken;  and  though  her 
neutrality  was  cold,  perhaps  it  was  not  a  mere  profession;  the 
strength  and  character  of  her  armies  made  her  policy  respected, 
and  preserved  her  territory  from  French  violation.  Compare 
with  this  description,  which  every  honourable  member  must  ad- 
mit to  be  just,  the  situation  of  the  north  of  Germany  last  year, 
when  we  were  invited  by  the  Austrian  Government  to  make 
a  diversion  there  in  its  favour.  Russia,  instead  of  being  leagued 
against  France,  was  now  her  most  obsequious  and  devoted  ally; 
Denmark  our  enemy,  the  military  power  of  Prussia  no  longer 
formidable  even  by  reputation,  but  broken  down  in  one  disastrous 
battle,  the  sequel  of  a  disastrous  policy;  and  the  whole  face  of 
Germany,  once  covered  with  independent  and  respectable  states, 
now  strewed  with  the  fragments  of  her  ancient  institutions,  and 
presenting  nothing  in  their  room  but  enfeebled  or  usurped  gov- 
ernments, all  leagued  with,  or  subservient  to  France.  Such  was 
the  state  of  things,  in  which  we  were  invited  to  send  an  army 
to  the  north  of  Germany.  Let  us  consider  a  little  the  detail 
of  such  an  operation.  Could  we  have  sent  our  army  upon  any 
other  condition,  or  with  any  other  view  than  that  it  should  re- 
turn to  England  in  the  winter?  No  one  of  those  who  have  most 
strenuously  contended  for  the  policy  of  a  diversion  in  the  north  of 
Germany,  has  ventured  to  go  the  length  of  stating  that  it  would 
have  been  politic  to  risk  the  fate  of  a  British  army  during  the 
winter  in  that  part  of  the  continent.  The  times  are  indeed  long 
past,  when  foreign  armies,  moving  in  great  masses,  could  main- 
tain themselves  like  a  separate  state,  a  nation  among  nations, 
in  the  heart  of  Germany,  for  many  successive  seasons:  the  cir- 
cumstances of  Europe  are  completely  changed  since  any  such 
comprehensive  plan  of  continuous  operations  could  have  been 
practicable;  and,  at  all  events,  the  force  we  could  spare  for  such 
an  undertaking  must  have  been  so  small  as  to  be  wholly  inade- 
quate to  the  accomplishment  of  it  With  whatever  good  fortune, 
therefore,  it  might  have  commenced  its  career,  it  must  have  been 
finally  withdrawn  before  the  winter.  And  I  shudder  at  the  ca- 
lamities that  would  have  been  brought  upon  the  unfortunate  in- 
habitants, who,  having  been  induced  to  take  up  arms  upon  the 
faith  of  British  protection,  must  have  been  left  exposed  to  all  the 
vindictive  outrages  of  exasperated  tyranny,  whenever  the  progress 
of  the  seasons,  independent  of  military  disasters,  should  render  it 
indispensable  I'm-  the  British  army  to  retire. 

Hut  this  is  not  all.     It  is  not  alone  a  humane  consideration  for 


102  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

the  sufferings  that  might  have  been  entailed  upon  the  wretched 
inhabitants,  nor  even  a  regard  for  the  ultimate  security  of  the 
British  army,  that  rendered  an  expedition  to  the  north  of  Ger- 
many, in  my  opinion,  inexpedient  and  impolitic.  There  were 
other  considerations,  which  could  not  be  safely  overlooked  at  a 
time  when  such  an  Expedition  was  in  agitation.  Broken  down 
and  humbled  as  Prussia  was,  she  still  had  an  army,  which,  though 
unable  to  make  head  against  France,  might  yet  have  been  very 
formidable  against  the  limited  force  which  we  could  have  sent  out 
to  Germany.  With  that  army  the  British  army,  in  the  course  of 
its  operations,  must  have  come  in  contact;  and,  if  that  were  likely, 
(nay,  rather,  if  it  was  impossible  to  avoid  it,)  I  will  ask  whether, 
under  all  the  circumstances  of  Europe,  it  would  have  been  pru- 
dent in  us  to  have  involved  ourselves  in  active  hostilities  with 
Prussia;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  if  any  thing  like  an  understanding 
should  appear  to  have  existed  between  Prussia  and  us,  would  it 
not  have  furnished  Buonaparte  with  a  plausible  pretext  for  wrest- 
ing from  the  monarch  of  that  country  the  bauble  of  a  sceptre,  and 
tearing  from  his  head  the  mockery  of  a  crown  which  he  is  still  al- 
lowed to  wear  ?  If,  then,  these  would  have  been  the  consequences 
that  would  have  resulted  from  an  Expedition  to  the  north  of  Ger- 
many, need  more  be  said  to  show,  that  it  was  the  bounden  duty 
of  His  Majesty's  Government  to  pause  before  they  should  under- 
take it;  nay,  that  they  are  fully  justified  in  having  declined  the 
undertaking  after  the  most  grave  and  mature  deliberation? 

All  this  would  be  true,  even  on  the  supposition  that  the  insur- 
rections in  Germany  had  risen  to  such  a  height,  without  our  in- 
terference, as  to  hold  out  some  temptation  to  an  enterprise  of  this 
kind.  Without  such  a  temptation,  to  be  sure,  the  hostile  invasion 
of  Germany  would  have  been  madness.  But,  after  all,  what  wTas 
actually  at  the  time  the  state  of  these  insurrections  ?  What  pro- 
gress had  they  made,  or  what  assistance  were  they  likely  to  afford 
to  our  efforts,  if  an  expedition  from  Great  Britain  had  been  sent 
thither?  A  bold  and  adventurous  soldier  (Schill,)  impelled  by 
loyalty  and  national  zeal,  though  unauthorized  by  his  sovereign, 
took  up  arms  against  the  common  enemy,  and  having  assembled 
a  few  followers,  commenced  an  intrepid  but  short-lived  career  of 
active  hostility  and  daring  enterprise;  the  Prince  of  Hesse,  seek- 
ing the  recovery  of  the  dominions  of  which  he  had  been  tyran- 
nically deprived  by  Buonaparte,  was  employed  in  raising  a  corps 
of  partisans;  and  the  gallant  Duke  of  Brunswick,  anxious  to  re- 
venge the  wrongs  sustained  by  his  illustrious  house,  had  placed 
himself  at  the  head  of  a  small  but  chosen  body  of  troops,  and  was 
enabled,  partly  by  the  bravery  of  his  followers,  and  partly  by  the 
good  will  of  the  people,  to  traverse  the  whole  of  the  north  of  Ger- 
many unmolested,  defeating  several  corps  of  the  enemy,  his  supe- 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  103 

riors  in  number,  on  the  way.  This  was  the  sum  of  the  insurrec- 
tions in  the  north  of  Germany.  The  little  obstruction  given  to 
the  different  bodies  of  troops  in  arms  was  undoubtedly  a  proof  of 
the  disposition  of  the  mass  of  inhabitants;  but  that  disposition, 
though  friendly,  was  inactive  and  quiescent.  Splendid  as  they 
were  as  instances  of  individual  heroism,  these  partial  and  detached 
exertions  surely  did  not  amount  to  such  an  expression  of  national 
will,  nor  hold  out  such  assurance  of  general  concert,  as  would 
alone  have  justified  a  landing  in  the  north  of  Germany,  in  reli- 
ance upon  the  co-operation  of  the  people.  It  was  surely  incum- 
bent upon  us,  before  we  embarked  in  such  a  momentous  enter- 
prise, to  compare  our  means  with  the  end:  to  weig;h  against  the 
possible  advantage  the  certain  sacrifice;  and  to  keep  ever  upper- 
most in  our  contemplation  the  dreadful  sufferings  that  its  failure 
or  even  its  partial  success,  would  draw  down  upon  the  population 
of  Germany.  The  feelings  of  humanity  no  less  than  considera- 
tions of  prudence,  were  against  the  measure,  nor  could  Austria 
justly  expect,  nor  could  we  consistently  afford  her,  that  temporary 
relief  which,  it  is  admitted,  she  might  have  gained,  at  the  expense 
of  so  much  certain  and  permanent  injury  to  others. 

The  course  which  His  Majesty's  Government,  on  the  contrary, 
did  actually  take,  was  calculated  to  promote  alike  the  interests  of 
our  ally  and  our  own,  to  a  degree  in  all  probability  much  greater, 
and  in  a  manner  free  from  the  objection  of  injustice. 

Sir,  I  understand  that  in  a  French  newspaper,  published  imme- 
diately under  the  eye  of  the  Government  at  Paris,  in  an  account  of 
some  former  debate  in  this  House,  expressions  have  been  imputed 
to  me,  importing  that,  when  the  Expedition  sailed  for  the  Scheldt, 
I  looked  for  and  expected  an  active  co-operation  from  the  people 
of  Flanders  and  Holland.  The  words  of  so  insignificant  an  in- 
dividual as  myself  could  hardly  be  worth  the  trouble  of  misrepre- 
sentation— nor  should  I  think  myself  warranted  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  House  in  setting  such  misrepresentation  right — were 
it  not  that,  from  the  official  situation  which  I  had  the  honour  to 
fill  when  this  enterprise  was  undertaken,  I  might  be  supposed  to 
speak  from  some  ascertained  knowledge  of  the  dispositions  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  countries  in  question;  and  a  declaration,  taken 
to  be  official,  might  be  used  to  their  wrong.  I  think  it  right, 
therefore,  to  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  deny  that  I  ever 
uttered  such  an  expression;  I  will  go  farther,  and  fairly  and  truly 
state,  that  no  expectation  of  the  kind  was  entertained;  and  that 
one  consideration  which  mainly  recommended  the  Expedition  to 
the  Scheldt  to  my  mind,  was  the  absence  of  any  such  view  or  ex- 
pectation. I  knew  we  had  not  a  force,  and  I  did  not  think  it 
was  our  policy  to  engage  in  a  system  of  continental  operations. 
The  same  objections  which  I  felt  to  the  north  of  Germany  would 


104  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

have  weighed  with  me  against  Antwerp,  if  it  had  been  proposed 
to  me  to  go  in  search  of  insurrections.     I  agreed  to  the  Expedi- 
tion to  the  Scheldt  as  a  military,  not  a  political  enterprise;  as  an 
enterprise  of  destructive  hostility,  not  of  conciliatory  co-opera- 
tion.    I  had  no  hope  of  conquering  through  Flanders;  or  of  keep- 
ing Flanders  against  France;  or  of  liberating  Holland  by  pene- 
trating its  frontier  from  the  Scheldt.     But  I  did  think,  and  do 
think  still,  that  a  great  blow  was  to  be  struck  against  the  pride 
and  power  of  Buonaparte,  by  the  destruction  of  his  fleet  and  ar- 
senals.   I  wished  for  no  longer  occupation  than  might  be  sufficient 
for  this  purpose,  and  this  I  expected  to  gain,  not  by  the  connivance 
of  the  inhabitants,  but  by  force,  and  by  taking  them  unprepared. 
Indeed,  if  I  were  to  lay  my  finger  upon  that  spot  of  subjugated 
Europe,  which  has  suffered  the  least  from  French  tyranny  and  op- 
pression, and  where,  therefore,  co-operation  was  least  to  be  ex- 
pected, I  should  point  out  Antwerp.     Before  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, Antwerp  was  in  a  state  of  comparative  desolation ;  her  former 
greatness  had  vanished;  her  prosperit)?-  was  extinguished;  her  trade 
annihilated;  her  population  was  dwindled,  and  the  grass  growing 
in  her  streets,  formerly  the  crowded  haunts  of  industry  and  com- 
merce.    To  this  wretched  state  had  Antwerp  been  reduced,  not 
by  nature,  but  by  treaty;  not  by  any  moral  or  physical  defect,  but 
by  the  arts  of  the  diplomatist  and  the  dash  of  a  pen;  and  from 
the  destructive  effects  of  a  restriction  so  imposed,  was  she  libera- 
ted in  consequence  of  her  annexation  to  France.     Neither  was 
there  any  thing  of  attachment  to  her  former  government  to  coun- 
teract the  natural  influence  of  her  present  prosperity;  and  it  was 
against  the   sources  of   that  prosperity,  her  growing  maritime 
greatness,  that  this  blow  was  aimed.     From  the  population  of 
Antwerp,  therefore,  no  aid  or  co-operation  was  to  be  expected. 
They  alone,  perhaps,  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  continent,  would 
suffer  by  being  replaced  in  the  situation  in  which  they  had  been 
previous  to  the  French  Revolution.    On  what,  then,  did  we  ground 
our  hopes  of  success?   I  have  stated  on  our  own  means,  and  their 
want  of  preparation.     Undoubtedly  we  had  expected  to  be  able 
to  take  Antwerp  by  surprise;  and  we  had  every  reason  to  suppose 
it  would  be  found  in  such  a  state  from  all  the  information  which 
had  been  collected  upon  the  subject.     That  the  information  upon 
which  that  expectation  was  founded,  was  correct,  has  since  been 
unequivocally  proved.     I  refer,  as  the  most  satisfactory  proof  on 
this  point,  to  certain  articles  which  were  published  in  the  Moni- 
teur,  at  the  time  when  the  destination  of  the  Expedition  was  first 
publicly  known  at  Paris,  purporting  to  be  the  official  correspond- 
ence between  Buonaparte  and  his  minister  of  war;  and  manifestly 
published  with  a  view  to  make  the  people  of  France  believe  that 
Antwerp  had  not  been  incautiously  neglected.     This  correspond- 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  105 

ence  set  forth  that  our  Expedition  had  been  originally  intended 
for  Spain,  but  that  in  consequence  of  the  conclusion  of  the  armi- 
stice between  France  and  Austria,  its  destination  was  subsequent- 
ly changed.  An  assertion  which  we  know  to  be  false,  and  which 
could  have  no  object  but  to  excuse  the  not  having  made  timely 
preparations  at  Antwerp.  This  is  a  construction  of  itself  suffi- 
ciently evident,  but  is  made  still  more  so  by  the  order  with  which 
this  correspondence  was  followed — an  order,  commanding  the 
gens  d'armes  and  the  garde  nationale  to  march  to  Antwerp  im- 
mediately, and  put  that  city  in  a  perfect  state  of  defence.  Most 
unquestionably  if  that  city  had  been  previously  secure  against  at- 
tack, it  would  not  have  been  necessary  to  issue  an  order  calling 
for  the  services  of  comparatively  irregular  troops,  for  the  purpose 
of  putting  it  into  a  proper  state  for  defence.  Such  a  measure 
is  a  virtual  admission  that  Antwerp  was  in  an  unprepared  state, 
that  the  enemy  was  taken  by  surprise.  It  is  an  evidence  derived 
from  the  enemy  himself,  of  the  wisdom  of  the  original  plan  of 
the  Expedition — and  of  the  original  probability  of  its  success. 

But  it  has  been  urged  with  a  great  apparent  triumph  against 
His  Majesty's  Ministers,  cither  that  they  had  not  foreseen  the 
difficulties  encountered  in  the  progress  of  the  Expedition,  or  that, 
having  been  aware  of  those  difficulties  and  dangers,  and  having 
yet  sent  out  the  armament  under  all  these  discouragements,  they 
are  more  deeply  responsible  for  all  the  consequences  of  it.  Un- 
doubtedly His  Majesty's  Ministers  did  foresee  difficulties  in  the 
course  which  they  were  pursuing  (and  what  great  military  meas- 
ure can  be  expected  to  be  wholly  free  from  them,)  but  the  difficul- 
ties which  they  foresaw  were  not  of  a  nature  to  preclude  a  ration- 
al prospect  of  success.  If  I  am  to  judge  by  what  I  have  heard 
in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  gentlemen  think  that  before  any 
expedition  should  ever  sail  from  our  shores,  His  Majesty's  Min- 
isters should  not  only  have  an  absolute  certainty  of  ultimate  suc- 
cess, but  should  also  trace  out  to  the  respective  commanders  every 
step  by  which  they  are  to  proceed  in  the  execution  of  the  service 
intrusted  to  them.  In  that  case  no  expedition  would  ever  be  un- 
dertaken; for  what  mortal  foresight  can  take  in  all  the  possible 
casualties  that  may  occur  to  defeat  the  object?  Or  who  would  un- 
dertake to  furnish  a  general  with  a  detailed  plan  of  all  the  opera- 
tions which  he  may  have  to  execute,  without  leaving  him  any  dis- 
cretion to  depart  under  any  circumstances,  from  the  strict  line  of 
his  instructions;  considering  how  much  must  always  depend  upon 
contingencies  which  cannot  be  foreseen,  as  well  as  upon  observa- 
tions made,  and  information  collected,  upon  the  spot.  A  man  en- 
gaged in  a  game  of  chess,  may,  without  any  question,  by  taking 
certain  moves  on  the  part  of  his  adversary  for  granted,  insure  his 
own  success.  But  then  if  his  adversary  should  vary  from  the 
\5 


lOfi  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

course  which  he  assumes  for  him,  all  his  hopes  would  he  frus- 
trated, and  all  his  plans  would  fall  to  the  ground.  All  that  can, 
upon  this  point,  be  required  of  a  government,  is,  that  they  should 
in  the  first  place  select  a  proper  object  to  justify  the  attempt  by 
its  importance,  and  where  there  may  be  a  probable  prospect  of  suc- 
cess; that  their  views,  respecting  such  object  should  be  communi- 
cated without  reserve  to  the  generals  commanding,  to  whom,  at 
the  same  time,  should  be  left  a  certain  degree  of  discretion  as 
to  the  means  of  executing  the  service;  and  that  they  should  pro- 
vide adequate  means  for  carrying  any  plan  that  may  be  deter- 
mined upon  into  execution.  Much  has  been  said  as  to  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  the  means  provided  for  the  regular  siege  of  Antwerp; 
but  in  this  objection  it  is  assumed  that  a  regular  siege  was  neces- 
sary for  its  reduction.  The  expectation  of  the  Government  cer- 
tainly was,  that  it  would  be  taken  by  surprise,  and  carried  by 
bombardment  or  by  an  assault.  Much  censure  has  also  been  be- 
stowed upon  His  Majesty's  Ministers  for  having  undertaken  the 
Expedition  at  all  in  opposition  to  the  declared  opinions  of  the 
Commander-in-Chief  and  of  Colonel  Gordon;  and  much  stress  is 
laid  upon  a  particular  expression  of  the  latter  officer,  viz.  "  that  it 
was  a  desperate  enterprise."  It  appears  to  me  that  this  expression 
does  not  bear  out  the  interpretation  which  has  been  given  to  it. 
It  is  clearly  used  by  Colonel  Gordon  in  a  colloquial  sense,  but 
honourable  gentlemen  extract  from  it  more  than  its  strict  etymo- 
logical meaning;  and  insist,  that  according  to  Colonel  Gordon,  the 
enterprise  was  so  difficult  and  hazardous,  as,  if  undertaken,  to 
preclude  all  hopes  of  success,  and  to  include  every  ground  of 
failure. 

Great  efforts,  I  observe,  have  on  the  other  hand  been  made  to 
disparage  the  opinions  of  General  Brownrigg,  and  with  this  view 
particularly  it  has  been  urged  against  him  that  he  had  not  stated 
the  authorities  upon  which  those  opinions  were  founded.  I  ob- 
serve, indeed,  that  those  gentlemen  who  seem  to  set  so  high  a 
value  on  authorities,  never  once  thought  of  calling  for  the  authori- 
ties upon  which  the  opinions  of  those  officers  were  founded  whose 
testimony  appeared  in  any  degree  to  bear  against  the  Government 
But  so  minute,  so  anxious  are  they  in  scrutinizing  and  sifting 
every  thing  that  favours  His  Majesty's  Ministers,  that  if  General 
Brownrigg  had  quoted  authorities  for  his  opinion,  I  am  convinced 
they  would  have  called  for  the  authorities  of  these  authorities,  and 
so  on,  until  at  length  they  should  arrive  at  some  point  where  they 
could  make  a  stand  and  withhold  belief.  An  old  Indian  mytholo- 
gy affirms  that  this  globe  is  supported  by  an  elephant:  a  question 
arises,  what  supports  the  elephant?  the  answer  is  "  a  tortoise;" 
well,  and  upon  what  does  the  tortoise  rest?  to  that  question  the 
mythologist  affords  no  answer.     And  in  like  manner,  General 


EXPEDITION   TO   THE   SCHELDT.  10"7 

Brownrigg's  authorities  must  have  had  some  end,  and  so  the  hon- 
ourable gentlemen  would  find  at  last  some  ground  of  doubt,  and 
some  excuse  for  incredulity. 

It  has  been  much  insisted  upon  as  a  ground  of  charge  against 
the  Government,  that  the  opinion  of  Lord  Chatham  had  not  been 
taken  upon  the  policy  and  practicability  of  the  Expedition;  but 
upon  what  ground  does  such  a  charge  rest?  As  a  Cabinet  Minis- 
ter, Lord  Chatham  was  a  party  to  the  principle,  and  by  having 
accepted  the  command  in  chief  he  rendered  himself  more  par- 
ticularly responsible  for  its  execution.  There  is  a  story  which  I 
remember  to  have  heard  more  than  once  from  an  honourable 
member  of  this  House,  now  no  more,  (Mr.  Fox,)  of  two  generals 
in  the  French  service,  one  of  whom,  addressing  his  troops  at  the 
commencement  of  a  battle  or  an  assault,  used  to  say,  "  Allez,  mes 
enfans;"  the  other  "  Jl  lions,  mes  enfaTis"  The  latter  was  the 
more  popular  commander,  as  he  showed  his  confidence  in  the  en- 
terprise and  his  expectation  of  success,  by  his  willingness  to  share 
in  the  perils  and  the  glory  of  the  attempt.  Upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple the  honourable  gentleman  may  infer  Lord  Chatham's  appro- 
bation of  the  Expedition,  from  his  censenting,  by  the  acceptance 
of  the  command,  to  associate  himself  with  its  operations  and  its 
success. 

In  reply  to  all  that  has  been  said,  as  to  the  impracticability  of 
taking  Antwerp  by  surprise,  the  noble  lord  on  the  bench  behind 
me  (Lord  Castlereagh)  has  very  appositely  quoted  the  case  of  Co- 
penhagen: that  case  unfortunately,  however,  "  was  not  to  the  taste 
of  the  honourable  gentlemen  opposite:"  for,  say  they,  "Copen- 
hagen was  taken  too  much  by  surprise.  And  besides,  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Copenhagen  were  filled  with  such  indignation  against  us 
for  the  unprovoked  attack;"  that — what?  Why  "  that  they  sur- 
rendered the  city,  without  making  all  the  resistance  which  the 
state  of  its  defences  would  have  allowed."  This  was,  certainly, 
the  oddest  effect  of  indignation  that  I  have  ever  heard  of;  that  it 
should  diminish  energy,  and  facilitate  surrender;  instead  of  ani- 
mating and  exasperating  hostility,  and  determining  men  to  defend 
themselves  to  the  last  extremity! 

But,  if  instances  are  necessary  to  prove  the  practicability  of 
carrying  such  a  place  as  Antwerp  by  a  coup-de-main,  they  pre- 
sent themseh  es  to  recollection  in  abundance.  We  cannot  forget 
how  the  strong  fortresses  of  Breda,  Bergen-op-Zoom,  and  the 
other  fortified  places  in  Dutch  Flanders,  and  Brabant,  fell  without 
a  struggle  before  Dumourier  in  the  infancy  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution. These  instances,  however,  will  perhaps  be  set  aside  by 
the  honourable  gentlemen  as  easily,  and  certainly  with  more 
plausibility  than  Copenhagen.  Their  fall  was  the  effect  of  revo- 
lutionary principles,  it  will  be  said.     They  were  half  conquered 


108  EXPEDITION   TO  THE   SCHELDT. 

before  the  enemy  appeared  under  their  walls.  Let  us  go  back 
then  to  former  wars,  when  no  such  extraneous  principles  operated 
upon  the  fate  of  fortified  towns,  and  we  shall  find  a  regular  forti- 
fication, Prague,  surrendering  upon  a  bombardment  of  seven  days. 
We  shall  find  a  Schweidnitz,  in  Silesia,  a  fortress  deemed  impreg- 
nable, yet  taken  and  retaken  by  surprise,  I  think  three  several 
times,  between  the  years  1747  and  1761,  and  a  fourth  time,  I  be- 
lieve, in  1762,  but  then  to  be  sure  by  a  regular  siege.  The  three 
former  captures  were  by  coup-de-main.  If  I  were  to  go  farther 
back  still,  I  might  refer  to  .the  case  of  Lerida  in  Catalonia,  before 
which  the  great  Conde  failed  in  a  regular  siege,  and  yet,  when  af- 
terwards invested  by  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  the  place  was  carried 
by  assault  in  a  fortnight. 

It  is  not  my  object  to  prove  by  these  instances  out  of  the  num- 
berless cases  of  a  similar  description  that  could  be  quoted,  that, 
because  places  deemed  secure  against  such  a  mode  of  attack  have 
sometimes  been  reduced  by  a  coup-de-main,  therefore  every  im- 
practicable attempt   upon   a  strong  fortress,  may  prudently  be 
hazarded!  No  such  thins.     The  inference  that  I  draw  from  the 
cases  alluded  to,  is  simply  this,  that  as  in  the  progress  of  wars, 
fortresses  of  the  highest  military  description,  fortresses  generally 
deemed  impregnable,  have  been  reduced  by  summary  means,  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow,  that  an  expedition  fitted  out  under  pe- 
culiarly favourable  circumstances,  for  the  attainment  of  such  an 
object,  should  be  justly  condemned   as  rash  and  absurd,  because 
the  place  against  which  it  is  directed  may  have  been,  in  other 
times,  considered  as  not  liable  to  be  taken  without  regular  ap- 
proaches.    I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  a  positive  dependence  ought 
by  preference  to  be  placed  on  improbable  contingencies,  but  that 
war  never  has  been  nor  ever  can  be  carried  on,  without  incur- 
ring some  danger,  and  leaving  something  to  hazard?    Undoubted- 
ly means  should  be  diligently  proportioned  to  ends,  every  prac- 
ticable foresight   should  be  exercised,  every  attainable   security 
taken,  and  as  little  left  to  chance  as  may  be.     But  when,  after  all 
that  human  wisdom  can  do,  to  chance  something  must  still  be 
left;  when,  after  all  physical  and  material   means  are  provided, 
spirit  and  enterprise  must  after  all  turn  the  scale:   I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  condemn  an  expedition  because  I  cannot  beforehand  dem- 
onstrate that  it  will  succeed.     The  general  who  surrendered  with- 
out a  blow,  because  the  enemy  outnumbered  him,  in  a  certain 
given  proportion,  may  have  acted  according  to  all  the  rules  of 
war.      When    Lord    Peterborough   took    Montjuich,    he    sinned 
against  all  the  principles  of  military  calculation.     But  I  read  with 
more  delight  of  Lord  Peterborough's  romantic  achievements,  than 
I  do  of  the  sober  and  regular  movements  of  his  successor,  who 
proceeded  with  the  most  scrupulous  regularity,  to  lose  back  all 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  109 

that  his  predecessor  had  so  irregularly  won.  A  book  came  out, 
some  years  ago,  in  France,  on  the  sucject  of  a  carriage,  or  some 
such  vehicle,  which  had  been  contrived  in  this  country,  I  believe, 
for  a  wager  at  Newmarket,  to  go  a  certain  distance  in  a  given 
time.  The  author  of  the  book  undertook  to  prove,  very  learned- 
ly, that  the  project  could  not  possibly  succeed.  He  formed  a 
most  elaborate  calculation,  according  to  the  most  precise  rules, 
which  gave  the  greatest  satisfaction  to  all  the  scientific  of  Paris. 
A  was  to  represent  the  carriage;  B  the  horses;  C  the  driver;  D 
the  resistance  of  the  air;  E  the  friction  of  the  earth;  and  F  the 
utter  impossibility  of  success.  And  A  plus,  B  plus,  C  plus,  D 
plus,  E  was  equal  to  F,  and,  therefore,  the  project  must  fail. 
While  the  book  was  publishing,  however,  the  wager  was  won: 
but  the  lovers  of  science  contented  themselves  with  affirming  that, 
though  the  project  did  succeed,  it  ought  not  to  have  succeeded. 
Now,  Sir,  I  am  ready  to  admit  that  honourable  gentlemen  came 
forward  with  their  mathematical  reasoning  under  very  great  ad- 
vantages; the  Expedition,  upon  whatever  grounds  undertaken,  has 
failed.  But,  whatever  may  be  the  reasoning  on  their  part,  I  must 
ever  contend  that  this  failure  has  risen  from  causes  which  it  was 
utterly  impossible  for  human  wisdom  or  power  to  control.  It  was 
chiefly  to  that  state  of  the  winds  by  which  the  Expedition  was 
compelled  to  go  into  the  Room-pot,  and  to  the  consequent  impos- 
sibility of  capturing  Cadsand,  that  this  failure  is  to  be  attributed. 
I  will  ask  any  honourable  gentleman,  whether,  if  Cadsand  had 
been  reduced  in  the  first  instance,  and  the  passage  up  the  Scheldt 
at  once  opened  and  free,  there  would  not  have  been  good  reason 
to  expect  complete  ultimate  success? 

From  the  countenances  of  some  of  the  honourable  gentlemen 
opposite,  I  collect  that  there  are  judges  in  this  House  before 
whom  the  accused  appear  under  great  disadvantage.  I  feel  sensi- 
bly, that  I  labour  under  considerable  difficulty  in  arguing  this 
case  before  those  gentlemen  by  whom  His  Majesty's  Ministers 
have  heretofore  been  called  on,  not  only  to  defend  themselves  for 
failures,  but  to  exculpate  themselves  for  victories,  and  to  make 
atonement  for  success.  From  those  gentlemen  undoubtedly  I  am 
not  sanguine  enough  to  look  for  any  very  favourable  decision. 
Such,  I  trust,  however,  is  not  the  disposition  of  the  whole  House. 
The  House  will  not  make  His  Majesty's  Ministers  responsible 
for  disasters  which  they  could  not  prevent;  nor  censure  them 
because  the  weather  proved  unfavourable;  it.  will  not,  I  am  per- 
suaded, regard  with  a  prejudicial  harshness  and  severity  the  con- 
duct of  men,  to  whom  the  utmost  stretch  of  human  malice  could 
impute  no  motive  but  that  of  having  desired,  at  great  risk  to 
their  own  situations,  to  render  a  great  service  to  the  country. 
They  had  but  to  be  still  to  be  safe:   but  it  never  did  and  never 

L 


HO  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

could  escape  them,  that,  in  an  undertaking  of  such  magnitude 
and  hazard,  the  discredit  and  unpopularity  to  be  incurred  by 
failure,  infinitely  counterbalanced  any  credit  that  would  be  given 
to  them  by  their  opponents  for  success. 

For,  Sir,  in  all  discussions  upon  the  events  of  the  war,  I  ob- 
serve that  some  gentlemen  mete  out  a  very  different  measure  of 
judgment  to  the  actions  and  undertakings  of  their  own  Govern 
ment,  and  those  of  the  enemy.  They  uniformly  find  room  for 
panegyric  in  the  success  of  the  French  Ruler;  nor  do  I  recollect 
to  have  ever  heard  one  of  them  censure  the  conduct  of  Buonaparte 
for  his  oversights  or  his  failures.  The  injudicious  and  unsuccess- 
ful attack  upon  Acre,  the  defeat  at  Aspern,  and  the  shutting  him- 
self up  after  that  defeat  in  the  island  of  Inder-lobau — a  measure 
universally  condemned  by  military  men  as  an  egregious  error, 
and  one  which  afforded  to  Austria  an  opportunity  of  decisive  and 
destructive  success,  if,  happily,  advantage  had  been  taken  of  it — 
these  acts  of  rashness  and  misconduct  have  passed,  so  far  as  I 
have  observed,  without  animadversion.  But  while  they  over- 
looked the  blunders  of  the  enemy,  and  gave  him  the  fullest  credit 
for  his  successes,  they  disparage  every  advantage,  and  exaggerate 
every  misfortune  of  this  country.  According  to  their  just  stand- 
ard, any  success  on  the  part  of  the  British  Government  is  inva- 
riably the  result  of  accident,  but  failure  is  evidence  of  ignorance 
and  incapacity.  But  let  us  suppose  the  course  of  the  campaign 
which  we  are  now  discussing  to  have  been  inverted;  suppose  the 
enemy  to  have  been  the  assailant;  suppose  that  instead  of  having 
to  justify  themselves  for  having  captured  Walcheren,  His  Majes- 
ty's Ministers  had  now  to  defend  themselves  for  having  suffered 
the  Isle  of  Wight  to  be  occupied  by  the  enemy;  for  having  al- 
lowed a  French  army  to  remain  for  three  whole  months  in  pos- 
session of  a  station  menacing  and  overawing  our  principal  naval 
arsenal  at  Portsmouth?  What  would  be  the  severity  of  the 
charges  which  their  accusers  would  then  have  brought  against 
them;  what  admiration  would  have  been  expressed  of  the  enter- 
prise of  the  enemy,  and  what  epithet  of  disgrace  left  unapplied 
to  the  Ministers  who  had  thus  been  taken  by  surprise?  And  yet, 
extravagant  as  this  supposition  may  sound,  the  continued  occupa- 
tion of  Walcheren  by  a  British  army  during  so  many  months, 
had  precisely  the  same  effect  with  respect  to  France,  to  which  the 
Scheldt  is  not  less  important,  as  a  naval  port  and  arsenal,  than 
Portsmouth  to  this  country. 

The  continued  occupation  of  Walcheren  would  have  been  not 
less  a  blow  to  the  maritime  power,  and  to  the  pride  of  Buona- 
parte, than  that  of  the  Isle  of  Wight  by  France,  to  the  power  and 
pride  of  Great  Britain.  In  that  view — in  contemplation  of  its 
moral  effect  upon  the  minds  of  the  people  of  France,  as  much  as 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  HI 

in  respect  to  its  solid  advantages — I  concurred  in  the  destination 
of  the  Expedition  to  the  Scheldt.  I  think  it  would  have  been 
of  incalculable  benefit  that  the  Ruler  of  France  should  see  that 
he  could  not  strip  his  coasts  snd  country  of  troops,  and  draw  the 
whole  strength  of  his  army  into  the  heart  of  distant  kingdoms, 
without  subjecting  to  insult  and  invasion  his  own  immediate  ter- 
ritories, and  the  dearest  interests  of  his  empire. 

That  these  and  other  objects  have  been  blasted  by  the  ultimate 
failure  of  the  Expedition,  I  do  not  attempt  to  deny.  But  while 
the  magnitude  of  these  objects  aggravates  the  regret  which  its 
failure  naturally  occasions,  it  offers  to  the  discriminating  justice 
of  the  House  what  will  be  deemed,  I  trust,  a  sufficient  justifica- 
tion of  the  undertaking. 

Having  said  thus  much  upon  the  general  question  of  the  policy 
of  the  Expedition,  in  which  I  feel  myself  involved  in  a  common 
responsibility  with  all  those  who  were  at  the  time  of  its  being 
undertaken  members  of  His  Majesty's  Government,  I  come  now 
to  that  part  of  the  question  in  which  I  am  no  otherwise  concern- 
ed, than  that,  as  having  concurred  in  advising  the  Expedition,  I 
may  be,  to  a  certain  degree,  responsible  for  all  its  consequences; 
but  in  which  I  had  no  personal  share — I  mean  the  period  of  the 
evacuation  of  Walcheren.  Upon  this  subject  the  resolution  of 
censure  proposed  by  the  noble  lord,  appears  to  me  immeasurably 
severe.  No  man  can,  in  my  opinion,  think  conscientiously  that 
His  Majesty's  Ministers,  with  the  island  of  Walcheren  in  their 
hands,  with  so  many  strong  reasons  for  retaining  it,  if  the  reten- 
tion were  possible,  could  reasonably  be  expected  to  come  to  an 
immediate  decision  upon  a  point  involving  so  many  considera- 
tions of  infinite  importance  and  embarrassment. 

I  have  already  stated,  among  the  grounds  for  attempting  tbe 
Expedition,  the  commanding  position  of  Walcheren;  the  curb 
which  it  put  upon  the  maritime  strength,  and,  I  might  add,  upon 
the  commercial  greatness  of  the  French  empire.  The  customs 
of  Antwerp  are  at  least  one-third  of  the  whole  custom  revenue 
of  Buonaparte.  Add  to  this  considerations  of  economy:  if  (as 
was  at  least  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  most  competent  judges) 
the  possession  of  Flushing  would  have  enabled  us  to  diminish  the 
amount  of  the  fleet  destined  to  watch  the  Scheldt:  add,  too,  the 
military  triumph  of  wresting  and  retaining  from  the  enemy  the 
key  of  this  naval  arsenal,  upon  the  creation  of  which  he  had  rest- 
ed so  much,  too,  of  his  glory.  Against  this  was  to  be  put  the  af- 
flicting sickness  and  mortality  which  prevailed  among  our  troops; 
a  calamity  of  which  it  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  unjust  to  pretend  thai 
the  Ministers  did  not  feel  all  the  weight  and  poignancy  as  much 
as  those  who  affect  to  be  the  loudest  in  deploring  it.  But  neither 
the  original  plan  of  the  Expedition,  nor  the  prolongation  of  the 


112  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

stay  of  the  army  in  Walcheren,  are  fairly  censurable  on  this  ac- 
count, in  the  manner  and  to  the  degree  to  which  the  noble  lord 
proposes  to  inflict  his  censure. 

If  an  expedition  is  never  to  be  sent  to  a  climate  less  healthy 
than  that  in  which  we  have  the  happiness  to  live,  the  circle  of 
warfare  will  undoubtedly  be  much  contracted.  If  the  authority 
of  the  very  eminent  physician  (Sir  John  Pringle,)  which  has  been 
quoted  with  so  much  confidence,  is  to  be  conclusive  upon  this 
question,  that  same  authority  proves  a  great  deal  too  much;  for, 
if  taken  in  its  full  extent,  it  would  follow  that  no  expedition  ought 
ever  to  be  sent  to  any  part  of  Dutch  Flanders.  It  would  con- 
demn retrospectively  most  of  our  former  expeditions  to  the  con- 
tinent, and  specifically  all  those  campaigns  of  which  Sir  John 
Pringle  himself  has  written  the  history. 

Every  man  who  has  read  the  papers  on  the  table  must  feel,  and 
deeply  feel,  for  the  miseries  unavoidably  incident  to  war;  but 
though  these  miseries  have  been  brought  nearer  to  our  view  than 
in  former  instances,  and  though  it  may  possibly  suit  the  particular 
purposes  of  some  gentlemen  to  dwell  upon  them,  yet  I  must  beg 
of  the  House  not  to  suffer  themselves  to  be  so  far  biassed  in  their 
judgment  by  the  impulse  of  a  very  honourable  feeling,  as  to  ima- 
gine that  the  instance  of  this  Expedition,  however  striking,  is  sin- 
gular in  the  history  of  the  wars  of  this  country:  I  beg  them  not 
to  imagine  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  exhaust  the  whole  of  their 
compassion  on  Walcheren  alone;  nor  to  deceive  themselves  as  to 
the  tenure  by  which  our  West  India  islands  are  held.  No  man 
can  deplore  more  than  I  do  the  waste  of  life  that  results  from  the 
acquisition  and  retention  of  such  possessions;  but  it  must  be  con- 
sidered at  the  same  time,  that  no  important  national  advantage  is 
to  be  gained  without  some  kind  of  sacrifice;  and  however  we  may 
lament  the  price  at  which  it  is  purchased,  a  government  would  be- 
tray its  trust,  which  should  precipitately  abandon  a  great  and  es- 
sential object  of  national  acquisition,  or  national  glory,  even  from 
such  a  laudable  impulse.  Happy,  indeed,  would  it  be  for  man- 
kind, if  the  slaughter  of  the  battle  was  the  only  evil  of  war.  But 
there  are,  it  is  too  true,  various  other  sufferings  consequent  upon 
a  state  of  war,  besides  those  that  are  produced  by  engagements  in 
the  field;  sufferings  which  have  not  the  animation  of  effort,  or  the 
consolation  of  glory:  but  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  they  were  in- 
curred in  so  much  greater  proportion  for  Walcheren  as  to  require 
the  exaction  of  a  vindictive  retribution  from  Ministers  in  this  case 
more  than  any  other.  Walcheren  had  often  been  an  object  of 
British  desire,  aye,  and  of  British  possession,  too.  We  have  won 
it — we  have  held  it  in  former  times.  Its  importance  to  this  coun- 
try is  now  increased  ten-fold;  surely  its  climate  is  not  in  the  same 
proportion  become  more  pestilential.     It  has  been  confidently  as- 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT.  H3 

serted  in  this  debate,  that  a  clause  existed  in  the  capitulation  ot 
the  regiment  of  Berne,  when  in  the  service  of  the  Dutch  Govern- 
ment, stipulating  that  these  troops  should  not  be  employed  in 
Walcheren.  This  assertion  I  cannot  take  upon  myself  positively 
to  contradict;  but  I  can  affirm,  from  very  good  authority,  that  this 
very  regiment  of  Berne  has,  in  point  of  fact,  more  than  once, 
within  the  last  twenty  years,  made  a  part  of  the  garrison  of  Wal- 
cheren. And  I  have  further  been  assured,  too,  that  after  the  most 
diligent  search  no  such  clause  is  to  be  found  in  any  published 
treaty  or  capitulation  of  the  Cantons,  though  there  is,  in  some  of 
the  capitulations  published  in  Dumont's  collection,  an  article  pro- 
viding that  the  Swiss  auxiliaries  shall  not  serve  in  Batavia  or  the 
other  Dutch  colonies.  This  stipulation  is,  as  we  know,  not  unu- 
sual; the  foreign  troops  in  our  own  service  are  not  bound  to  serve 
in  the  British  colonies. 

Still,  however,  the  whole  point  thus  at  issue  is  merely  a  ques- 
tion of  degree.  I  admit,  without  hesitation,  that  the  miseries  in- 
cident to  an  unhealthy  situation  may  overbalance  many  and  con- 
siderable political  advantages.  But  the  question  to  be  considered 
is,  what  were  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  advantages  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  possession  of  Walcheren,  and  were  the  advan- 
tages such  as  to  justify  the  retaining  it,  could  it  have  been  retained, 
at  any  moderate  sacrifice?  This  is  the  calculation  into  which  gen- 
tlemen should  enter,  before  they  make  up  their  minds  to  pass  cen- 
sure upon  His  Majesty's  Ministers  for  having  kept  the  island  so 
long.  The  result  of  such  a  calculation,  I  firmly  and  conscien- 
tiously believe,  will  be,  that  such  was  the  importance  of  Walcheren 
to  this  country,  that  very  great  efforts  ought  to  have  been  made 
to  retain  it;  and  that  His  Majesty's  Ministers  were  perfectly  jus- 
tified in  having  hesitated  as  long  as  they  did,  before  they  finally 
determined  to  abandon  so  very  valuable  a  possession:  my  doubt, 
I  confess,  is,  whether  they  ought  tc  have  abandoned  it  at  all. 

If,  indeed,  His  Majesty's  Ministers  had  previously  resolved  to 
evacuate  the  island,  I  am  not  ready  to  affirm,  or  even  to  admit, 
that  they  were  in  that  case  justifiable  in  retaining  it  so  long  mere- 
ly with  a  view  to  the  destruction  of  the  works  at  Flushing,  or  in 
compliance  with  the  wishes  of  Austria.  The  destruction  of  the 
basin  at  Flushing,  a  mere  temporary  mischief  to  the  enemy,  to  be 
repaired  by  money,  ought  not,  in  my  opinion,  to  have  been  pur- 
chased by  any  avoidable  expense  of  British  life.  It  was  not  an 
advantage  worth  such  a  price;  and  as  to  Austria,  though  I  would 
do  much,  and  sacrifice  much  for  an  ally  in  the  war,  yet  in  the  actual 
situation  other  affairs  at  that  period,  so  long  after  the  armistice,  with 
so  very  little  reasonable  probability  of  the  renewal  of  hostilities, 
if  our  army  was  exposed  to  ten  days'  unnecessary  sickness  upon 
the  supposition  of  affording  any  effectual  aid  to  Austria,  then  I 
16  L* 


114  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

must  say,  that  there  does  not  appear  to  me  to  have  been  any  just 
proportion  between  the  advantage  expected  and  the  sacrifice  actu- 
ally made. 

Such,  however,  do  not  appear  to  have  been  the  motives  of  the 
delay.  It  appears  that  His  Majesty's  Ministers  received  succes- 
sive reports,  which  went  so  far  as  to  encourage  the  hope  of  being 
enabled  to  retain  Walcheren,  that  I  must  take  it  for  granted  that 
they  were  induced  really  to  look  to  that  object,  that  they  did  not 
unnecessarily  expose  the  army  to  the  influence  of  disease  for  a 
day  after  they  had  finally  resolved  on  abandoning  the  island;  and 
under  this  impression  I  shall  certainly  vote  against  the  second  re- 
solution of  the  noble  lord,  though  I  shall  at  the  same  time  feel  it 
necessary  to  move  or  to  suggest  an  amendment  to  the  counter- 
resolutions  of  the  honourable  and  gallant  general  (General  Craw- 
ford.) The  object  of  my  amendment  will  be  to  omit  the  specific 
grounds  of  justification  arising  from  the  circumstances  of  Austria, 
and  from  the  destruction  of  the  basin  at  Flushing;  and  to  leave  that 
justification  on  the  plain  and  obvious  ground  of  the  necessity  of 
collecting  the  materials  for  an  opinion,  and  the  danger  of  deciding 
precipitately  on  so  great  and  important  a  question.  I  am  perfect- 
ly ready  to  concur  in  the  conclusion  that  no  blame  attaches  to  the 
Government;  but  I  cannot  concur  in  the  honourable  general's 
statement  of  the  premises  from  which  that  conclusion  is  to  be 
drawn.  These,  Sir,  are  the  grounds  upon  which  I  as  cordially 
join  in  acquitting  the  Ministers  upon  the  second  of  the  noble 
lord's  propositions,  in  which  I  am  not  myself  personally  impli- 
cated, as  I  confidently  expect,  from  the  reflecting  justice  and  tem- 
per of  the  House,  an  acquittal  for  myself  in  common  with  my 
former  colleagues,  upon  the  charge  contained  in  the  noble  lord's 
first  Resolution. 

Something  yet  remains  to  be  said  upon  one  topic  on  which 
much  stress  has  been  laid  by  our  accusers — the  policy  of  marking 
with  extraordinary  severity  a  failure  so  disastrous  as  this  is  repre- 
sented to  have  been,  of  an  enterprise,  (as  it  is  averred,)  so  rashly 
undertaken. 

Sir,  of  this  policy,  as  a  matter  distinct  from  justice,  I  take  the 
liberty  to  entertain  great  doubts.  I  doubt  whether  the  vice  of 
the  British  Constitution  and  Government  be  a  too  great  proneness 
to  undertake  splendid  and  daring  enterprises,  or  its  main  perfec- 
tion an  uncommon  facility  for  conducting  the  operations  of  war. 
There  is  enough  already,  as  it  appears  to  me,  both  of  difficulty  to 
impede  and  of  responsibility  to  daunt  any  administration  in  this 
country,  to  whom  the  conduct  of  a  war  is  intrusted:  and  when 
that  war  is  to  be  carried  on  against  such  an  enemy  as  him  with 
whom  we  have  to  contend  at  present,  it  is  not,  in  my  humble 
opinion,  politic  to  go  one  step  beyond  what  justice  may  prescribe 


EXPEDITION  TO  THE   SCHELDT.  115 

to  enhance  that  difficulty,  and  press  the  weight  of  that  responsibil- 
ty  upon  the  Government.  Possibly  I  might  think  that  even  to  stop 
something  short  of  an  extreme  and  rigorous  account,  might  be  the 
more  politic  alternative  of  the  two.  We  have  to  contend  against 
an  enemy  who,  with  whatever  qualifications  he  may  be  endowed  by 
nature,  has  full  scope  and  play  given  to  all  his  faculties  and  views, 
by  the  unlimited  power,  the  irresponsible  freedom  with  which  he 
acts.  He  asks  no  consent,  he  renders  no  account,  he  wields  at 
will  the  population  and  resources  of  a  mighty  empire,  and  its  de- 
pendent states.  His  successes  are  magnified  with  enthusiasm,  his 
failures  silently  passed  over.  And  against  this  unity  of  counsel 
and  this  liberty  of  action  we  have  to  contend,  under  the  disadvan- 
tages of  a  mixed  and  complicated  government.  Disadvantages  in 
this  respect  they  are,  though  happily  and  gloriously  redeemed  and 
compensated  by  the  great  and  manifold  blessings  of  a  constitution 
unequalled  by  any  other  system  of  human  policy  in  the  history  of 
the  world !  Secrecy  of  design,  celerity  of  execution,  a  boldness 
of  adventure  arising  from  fearlessness  of  responsibility  for  ill  suc- 
cess, are  the  qualities  the  most  useful  for  the  vigorous  prosecution 
of  military  operations.  They  are  advantages  which  our  despotic 
adversary  enjoys  in  the  most  eminent  degree.  They  are  those 
which  a  free  government  necessarily  wants.  I  doubt  whether  it 
be  politic  to  aggravate  the  inequality  of  such  a  contest,  by  a  se- 
verity of  scrutiny,  and  a  hardness  of  animadversion  upon  failure, 
which,  by  making  responsibility  too  heavy  to  be  borne,  has  a  ten- 
dency to  make  all  enterprise  too  hazardous  to  be  attempted.  Nei- 
ther again,  while  I  admit  and  lament  the  failure  of  this  Expedi- 
tion, can  I  agree  with  those  who  consider  the  disappointment  of  a 
great  object  of  national  policy  as  synonymous  with  national  dis- 
grace and  as  pregnant  with  national  ruin. 

Disgrace  happily  there  has  been  none.  Our  arms  are  not  only 
untarnished  in  this  enterprise,  but  have  been  crowned  with  signal 
success.  It  is  not  by  military  defeat  that  we  have  incurred  po- 
litical disappointment. 

And  as  to  national  ruin,  or  any  real  danger,  external  or  in- 
ternal, to  the  state,  from  the  failure  of  this  undertaking,  and  from 
the  judgment  of  acquittal  which  it  is  anticipated  the  House  may 
pronounce  upon  the  authors  of  it,  I  confess  they  appear  to  me  to 
be  visionary  apprehensions. 

That  the  inquiry  which  has  taken  place  into  this  subject  was 
proper  and  necessary,  that  it  was  due  to  the  magnitude  of  the 
case  and  to  the  feelings  of  the  country,  I  admit  as  willingly  as 
any  man — I  think  it  will  be  generally  agreed  that  the  inquiry  so 
instituted  has  been  conducted  throughout  with  as  much  industry 
and  impartiality  as  temper  and  moderation. 

I  hope  it  will  be  felt  that  those  who  were  implicated  in  it  have 


116  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  SCHELDT. 

not  shrunk  from  the  investigation,  but  have  courted  it  with  all 
becoming  deference,  and  now  await  the  result  with  all  humility, 
but  with  all  confidence  in  its  justice. 

When  that  result  shall  be  pronounced,  I  trust  that  it  will  meet 
the  dispassionate  acquiesence  and  approbation  of  the  country.  Nor 
do  I  fear  any  shock  from  the  failure  of  the  Expedition  to  the 
Scheldt  (disastrous  and  afflicting  as  it  has  been,)  or  from  the  con- 
duct of  the  House  upon  it,  either  to  the  substantial  and  magnifi- 
cent fabric  of  the  British  Constitution,  or  to  the  sound  and  solid 
foundation  of  British  greatness  and  prosperity.  And  so,  Sir,  upon 
every  ground  of  feeling,  reason,  and  principle,  I  expect,  from  the 
justice  of  the  House,  a  vote  in  opposition  to  the  resolutions  of  the 
noble  lord. 

The  debate  was  again  adjourned  to  the  following  day,  (Friday)  and  after  a 
protracted  discussion,  the  House  divided  at  seven  o'clock  on  the  morning  of 
Saturday : — 

For  Lord  Porchester's  Resolutions        -        -        227 
Against  them      ------        275 

Majority  for  Ministers  48 

Mr.  Canning's  amendment  was  carried  by  a  majority  of  51,  and  a  resolution 
(proposed  by  General  Crawford,)  was  also  carried  by  a  majority  of  23,  declara- 
tory of  the  approbation  of  the  House  in  the  retention  of  Walcheren,  and  con- 
sequently approving  the  conduct  of  Ministers. 


117 


VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL. 

JUNE  15th,  1810. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  moved  the  order  of  the  day  for  the 
third  reading  of  the  Vote  of  Credit  Bill.  The  amount  of  the  vote  of  credit 
was  £3,000,000.     On  the  question  being  put — 

Mr.  Whitbread  took  an  extensive  review  of  our  internal  and  foreign  relations, 
and  dissented  from  so  large  a  vote  of  credit,  at  the  same  time  that  he  declined 
dividing  the  House  upon  the  question.  The  principal  points  in  his  speech  are 
brought  so  clearly  into  view  in  the  following  very  eloquent  speech  of  Mr.  Can- 
ning, as  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  introducing  here  a  summary  of  his  argu- 
ments. The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and  Mr.  Canning  rose  at  the  same 
time.     The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  gave  way. 


Mr.  Canning  then  spoke  to  the  following  effect: — I  should 
hesitate,  Sir,  to  avail  myself  of  the  courtesy  of  my  right  honoura- 
ble friend,  especially  as  there  are  some  topics  in  the  speech  of  the 
honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Whitbread,)  to  which  a  person  in  my 
right  honourable  friend's  situation,  as  one  of  His  Majesty's  Min- 
isters, can  alone  be  competent  to  afford  a  satisfactory  answer,  were 
it  not  that  the  honourable  gentleman  has  done  me  the  honour  to 
address  himself,  in  many  parts  of  his  speech,  personally  to  me, 
and  in  a  manner  which  naturally  makes  me  anxious  to  reply  to 
him.  I  trust,  therefore,  that  I  shall  meet  the  indulgence  of  the 
House,  while  I  state  distinctly,  but  as  shortly  as  I  can,  the  reasons 
which  induce  me  to  give  my  most  cordial  assent  to  the  measure 
which  the  honourable  gentleman  opposes. 

As  to  the  grounds  which  the  honourable  gentleman  has  laid  for 
this  opposition  in  the  character  which  he  ascribes  to  the  present 
administration,  and  the  distrust  which  he  professes  to  feel  in  them, 
it  is  not  my  intention  to  follow  the  honourable  gentleman  through 
that  part  of  his  speech.  I  leave  these  topics  to  those  who  may 
hereafter  take  part  in  the  debate.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  to  say, 
that  whatever  might  be  my  general  opinion  of  any  administration, 
yet,  if  they  continued  in  office  at  the  end  of  a  session  of  Parlia- 
ment, I  know  nothing  that  would  justify  me  in  leaving  them, 
during  the  recess,  unarmed  with  the  means  usually  placed  at  the 
disposal  of  all  administrations,  to  provide  for  unforeseen  contin- 
gencies, and  to  take  advantage  of  any  fortunate,  though  unexpect- 
ed chan^r  in  the  situation  of  Europe. 

A  Government  does  exist,  to  which  His  Majesty  has  intrusted 
the  administration  of  public  affairs,  and  from  which  the  confidence 
of  Parliament  has  not  been  withdrawn.  If  the  determination  of  the 
honourable  gentleman  be  to  withhold  from  this  Government  such 


118  VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL. 

means  as  have  never  been  hitherto  refused  to  any  other,  far  from 
approving  of  the  candour  which  he  has  shown  in  putting  off  his 
opposition  to  the  last  stage  of  the  bill  now  under  discussion,  I 
should  have  thought  that  he  had  acted  more  consistently  with  that 
determination  on  his  part,  if  he  had  made  some  distinct  motion 
for  placing  the  administration  of  affairs  in  other  hands.  To  tie 
up  the  hands  of  those  who  are  still  left  in  the  conduct  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, appears  to  me  to  be  neither  a  wise  mode  of  marking 
distrust,  nor  a  happy  expedient  for  remedying  imbecility. 

If,  then,  the  present  Government  be  entitled  to  the  usual  confi- 
dence given  to  every  administration,  by  a  vote  of  credit  at  the 
close  of  the  session,  there  remains  only  the  question  as  to  the 
amount  of  that  vote — a  question  of  degree,  which  would  equally 
apply  to  any  government,  even  to  one  in  which  the  honourable 
gentleman  could  place  the  most  unlimited  confidence.  That  a 
vote  to  some  amount  ought  to  be  granted,  is  a  proposition  which, 
I  apprehend,  will  not  be  denied,  if  the  functions  of  the  Govern- 
ment are  to  be  discharged  at  all,  and  the  affairs  of  the  nation  to 
be  at  all  administered.  But  the  amount  of  such  a  vote  is  undoubt- 
edly matter  fit  for  discussion,  and  is  to  be  decided  by  the  view 
which  the  House  may  take  of  actual  and  probable  circumstances 
in  the  situation  of  the  county. 

The  view  which  the  honourable  gentleman  would  induce  the 
House  to  take  of  those  circumstances  is  such  as  would  justify,  in 
his  mind,  the  withholding  of  any  vote  of  credit,  or,  at  least,  of  the 
vote  proposed;  though  he  has  not  stated  exactly  in  what  degree 
he  would  desire  that  vote  to  be  diminished.  He  foresees  no  use, 
at  least  no  advantageous  use,  that  can  be  made  of  it.  To  whatever 
points  he  directs  his  view,  all  prospect  of  good  seems  closed  upon 
him;  he  looks  for  nothing  from  continued  exertion  but  renewed 
disappointment,  and  ultimate  despair. 

The  honourable  gentleman,  I  perceive,  (and  not  without  some 
degree  of  surprise)  has  not  concluded  his  speech  this  night  in  the 
same  manner  as  his  former  annual  exhibitions  at  the  close  of  the 
session,  by  a  declaration  of  the  necessity  of  peace,  and  an  avowal 
of  his  conviction  that  the  attainment  of  peace  is  practicable.  If 
to  terminate  a  contest,  into  which  this  country  has  been  forced, 
and  in  which  it  is  compelled  to  continue  by  the  violence  and  in- 
justice of  the  enemy,  the  honourable  gentleman  could  have  con- 
tended that  a  safe  and  honourable  peace  might  be  obtained,  and 
had  recommended  the  immediate  opening  of  negotiations  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  it;  however  I  might  be  disposed  to  disagree 
with  the  honourable  gentleman  in  that  opinion,  I  should  yet  be 
compelled  to  admit  that  he  had  laid  some  parliamentary  ground 
for  the  course  which  he  is  taking.  He  might  argue,  that,  if  a  se- 
cure and  honourable  peace,  the  only  legitimate  end  of  all  war, 


VOTE   OF  CREDIT  BILL.  H9 

could  be  procured,  this  House  ought  not  to  grant  to  the  Govern- 
ment the  means  of  meeting  the  contingencies  of  unnecessarily- 
protracted  warfare.  But  as'the  honourable  gentleman  appears  to 
have  abandoned  the  opinion  which  he  entertained  respecting 
peace — ("  I  have  not  abandoned  it,"  said  Mr.  Whitbread  across 
the  table,  "I  omitted  to  state  it") — well  then,  the  honourable 
member  has  not  abandoned  his  opinion,  but  he  has  omitted  to  state 
it:  if  the  omission  was  voluntary,  that  honourable  gentleman's 
sentiments  have  clearly  undergone  a  considerable  change;  if  inad- 
vertent, it  at  least  shows  that  he  does  not  feel  quite  so  confidently 
upon  the  subject  as  heretofore;  for  no  man  forgets  the  main  arti- 
cle of  his  creed  while  his  faith  continues  unshaken.  In  either 
case,  therefore,  it  is  obvious  that,  according  to  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman's own  present  views  we  are  to  look  to,  and  ought  to  pro- 
vide for,  a  state  of  indefinite,,  not  to  say  interminable  war. 

The  observations  made  by  the  honourable  gentleman  respecting 
the  rapid  and  unexpected  changes  which  have  of  late  years  taken 
place  in  Europe,  appear  to  me  to  suggest  a  reply  to  much  of  his 
general  reasoning;  because  the  more  frequent  these  sudden  changes, 
the  greater  is  the  chance  that  some  one  may  be  favourable;  and 
the  more  necessary  is  it  for  this  House  to  furnish  to  the  Govern- 
ment the  means  of  taking  advantage  of  such  a  change.  Let  the 
honourable  gentleman  retrace  the  awful  and  extraordinary  events 
of  the  last  year,  and  then  say  that  it  appears  even  to  him  prudent 
to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  variations  of  the  still  shifting  scene,  and 
wantonly  to  put  it  out  of  our  power  to  profit  of  any  possible  open- 
ing, not  to  say  of  any  probable  contingency,  in  our  favour?  The 
honourable  gentleman  admits  that  he  felt  sanguinely  in  the  cause 
of  Spain  in  the  outset;  but  had  he  anticipated  that  glorious  strug- 
gle? Did  he  foresee  or  foretell  that  sudden  ebullition  of  the  he- 
roic spirit  of  Spain,  that  simultaneous  and  universal  effort  against 
the  formidable  French  force,  which,  at  the  time,  occupied  every 
advantageous  position  in  that  country?  The  honourable  gentleman 
augured  unfavourably,  and  expected  little,  from  the  result  of  the 
war  in  which  Austria  embarked  last  year.  He  told  us  so  (to  do 
him  justice)  at  the  moment  when  that  war  broke  out.  But  while 
he  indulged  Ihcse  forebodings,  hid  he  any  notion  that,  within  the 
space  of  one  month  from  the  date  of  his  prophecy,  such  a  turn  of 
affairs  would  have  arrived  as  not  only  arrested  the  victorious  ca- 
reer of  the  enemy,  bul  rendered  the  issue  of  the  campaign  doubt- 
ful, and,  by  poising  equally  for  one  critical  month  the  chances  of 
the  war,  opened  to  the  nations  of  Europe  a  cheering,  though  alas! 
a  short  lived  prospect  of  deliverance?  Was  either  of  these  chances 
foreseen?  Was  either  of  them  not  worth  seizing  as  it  arose?  Argue 
then  from  the  pasl  to  the  future,  and  let  the  honourable  gentleman 
say  whether,  in  the  unsettled  and  anomalous  situation  of  the  con- 


120  VOTE  OP  CREDIT  BILL. 

tinent,  it  is  not  now  equally  impossible  to  foresee  what  events 
may  burst  upon  us,  in  the  course  of  a  few  months,  with  as  little 
previous  notice  as  those  to  which  I  have  referred  ? 

But  although  events  are  not  exhausted,  the  honourable  gentle- 
man's hopes  are  so.  Is  Parliament  then  not  to  make  provision 
for  any  possible  case  but  such  a  one  as  may  have  in  it  demonstra- 
ble certainty  of  success?  Or  is  there  in  the  present  state  of  the 
Spanish  cause,  to  which  the  honourable  gentleman's  expressions 
of  despondency  particularly  apply,  such  utter  hopelessness,  such 
irrecoverable  exhaustion  and  decay,  that  nothing  can  henceforth 
be  rationally  attempted  on  its  behalf;  and  that  on  that  ground 
alone,  therefore,  to  prevent  a  wasteful  application  of  the  resources 
of  this  country,  to  an  absurd  and  unattainable  object,  Government 
ought  to  be  left  without  any  discretionary  power  of  applying 
them  ? 

If  the  honourable  gentleman  is  resolved  to  despair  of  Spain,  I 
cannot  hinder  him.  But  I  think  I  can  prove  to  him  that  he  has 
no  right  to  despair,  on  the  same  principles  on  which  he  has  des- 
paired so  often  during  the  last  fourteen  years,  (and  so  often,  I  am 
grieved  to  add,  has  been  justified  by  the  event)  respecting  the 
other  states  of  Europe. 

What  has  been  the  nature  of  those  former  contests — and  what 
the  character  of  the  states  which  have  been  successively  subdued 
by  France?  What  that  of  France  as  compared  with  them?  I 
speak,  Sir,  of  the  earlier  stages  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  re- 
fer to  the  language  then  held  by  the  honourable  gentleman  and  his 
friends.  France  was  then  a  nascent  Republic — the  neighbouring 
nations  were  governed  by  old  and  feeble  despotisms — military 
despotisms,  it  is  true,  but  feeble  from  the  inherent  vices  of  their 
constitution.  In  France,  a  liberal  and  enlightened  philosophy  had 
brought  forth  a  spirit  of  revolutionary  freedom — had  reared  this 
new  and  formidable  birth  to  a  sudden  maturity  of  strength  and 
vigour — had 

"  Tom  from  his  tender  limbs  the  bands  away, 
And  bade  the  infant  giant  run  and  play." 

He  did  so,  and  the  effete  and  tottering  monarchies  of  the  conti- 
nent, military  despotisms  though  they  were,  fell  before  the  first 
touch  of  this  regenerating  conqueror. 

But  now  the  spirit,  at  least,  if  not  the  strength,  has  changed 
sides.  France — as  if,  according  to  the  doctrines  of  barbarian  su- 
perstition, the  soul  of  the  slain  had  transmigrated  into  the  slayer — 
France  is  herself  become  a  military  despotism.  She  is  opposed 
in  that  character  to  the  new-born  independence  of  Spain;  and,  if 
victory  had  been  faithful  to  the  precepts  of  the  honourable  gentle- 
man and  his  friends,  victory  ought  no  longer  to  declare  in  favour 


VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL.  121 

of  arms  which  are  no  longer  wielded  in  the  cause  of  freedom,  but 
in  that  of  tyranny  and  oppression. 

Victory,  indeed,  the  Spaniards  have  not  to  boast.  The  military 
power  of  France  has  unfortunately  outlived  the  causes  which  pro- 
duced it;  and  in  spite  of  theory,  flourishes  not  only  unsupported 
by  freedom,  but  opposed  to  it.  But  yet  the  theory  is  not  wholly 
shamed.  And,  if  France  has  not  at  once  lost  her  good  fortune 
because  she  is  enslaved,  there  is  yet  sufficient  distinction  between 
the  degrees  of  resistance  opposed  to  her  by  Spain  and  that  of  any 
other  country,  to  justify  the  generous  belief,  that  a  truly  national 
spirit  is  not  to  be  subdued. 

In  other  instances,  when  once  the  French  armies  had  overcome 
the  regular  and  disciplined,  armies  of  the  continent,  the  conquered 
Power  fell  without  further  effort,  and  submitted  to  the  will  of  the 
conqueror.  But  is  that  the  case  in  Spain  ?  Has  the  enemy,  with 
all  his  military  superiority,  and  with  all  the  advantage  of  having 
taken  the  Spaniards  unprepared — of  having  occupied  in  peace 
the  strong  holds,  which  he  afterwards  turned  to  the  purposes  of 
war — has  he  yet  succeeded  in  establishing  his  will  as  the  law  of 
Spain?  Whatever  faults  the  honourable  gentleman  may  find  with 
the  Spaniards,  I  am  sure  he  cannot  accuse  them  of  tame  submis- 
sion; or  of  a  want  of  persevering  exertions  in  the  glorious  con- 
test, into  which  they  have  been  driven  and  betrayed.  We  have 
seen  their  armies  beaten  down,  their  towns  taken  and  razed;  yet 
have  not  those  calamities  broken  their  spirits.  From  the  ashes  of 
their  slaughtered  countrymen,  and  from  the  smoking  ruins  of  their 
cities  and  their  hamlets,  has  burst  forth  a  renovated  flame,  kindling 
anew  that  ardour  and  enthusiasm,  which  misfortune  may  for  a  time 
smother  and  overwhelm,  but  has  not  power  to  extinguish.  A 
people  so  animated  and  so  resolute  may  be  exterminated,  but  they 
cannot  be  subdued;  from  each  disaster  that  befalls  them  they  de- 
rive new  energies  as  they  do  fresh  motives  of  resistance.  Im- 
mediate and  decisive  success  was  not  to  be  expected  in  such  a 
contest;  but  surely  to  have  so  long  protracted  the  struggle  against 
such  an  enemy,  and  under  all  the  disadvantages  under  which  they 
were  forced  into  it,  affords  indisputable  proof  of  qualifications  in 
the  Spaniards,  which  demand  our  admiration  and  esteem;  of  a 
patriotism,  a  steadiness,  a  zeal,  a  perseverance,  of  which  no  peo- 
ple in  Europe:  had  hitherto  afforded  an  example. 

The  more  I  contemplate  the  circumstances  of  Spain,  the  more 
pleasure  I  derive  from  the  consideration,  that  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman himself,  with  all  the  doubts  and  apprehensions  which  he 
professes  to  entertain,  lias  not  thought  it  wise  to  recommend  any 
step  to  be  taken  with  a  view  to  peace.  He  feels,  no  doubt,  that 
whilst  there  remains  a  chance  of  rescuing  that  country  from  the  un- 
just and  tyrannical  usurpation  of  France,  it  would  be  as  little  politic 
17  M 


122  VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL. 

as  generous  to  withdraw  our  assistance  from  the  Peninsula.  We 
cannot  do  so,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  leave  the  Peninsula  to  be 
occupied  by  France:  and  all  its  means,  opportunities,  and  resources 
to  be  immediately  employed  against  ourselves. 

It  is  not  now  a  question,  whether  Spain  and  Portugal  shall  be 
suffered  to  return  to  a  state  of  neutrality,  upon  our  consenting  on 
one  part,  and  of  France  on  the  other,  to  retire  from  the  Peninsula 
as  from  a  field  of  battle;  it  is  not  now  to  be  decided  whether  Ca- 
diz chall  send  forth  her  peaceful  fleets  of  commerce,  to  pass,  un- 
molested by  either  belligerent,  over  the  surface  of  the  ocean,  and 
to  waft  the  products  of  the  remote  dependencies  of  Spain,  indis- 
criminately to  both:  the  only  question  is,  whether,  by  abandoning 
the  footing  which  we  possess  in  the  Peninsula,  we  shall  leave 
France  at  liberty  to  occupy  the  ground  which  we  abandon,  to  oc- 
cupy the  ports  and  arsenals,  to  seize  the  naval  resources  of  Spain 
and  Portugal,  and  to  fit  out  in  harbours  now  in  our  possession,  or 
under  our  protection,  hostile  fleets  destined  (though  destined,  I 
trust,  in  vain)  for  the  object  most  dear  to  the  heart,  and  always 
uppermost  in  the  thoughts  of  Buonaparte,  the  invasion  and  de- 
struction of  Great  Britain. 

We  are  engaged  in  the  struggle,  therefore,  inevitably;  and  have 
no  alternative  but  to  maintain  it  with  vigour,  or,  declining  it,  to 
be  prepared  to  pay,  in  our  own  perils,  and  in  exertions  for  self- 
defence,  the  price  of  our  own  pusillanimity  and  baseness.  Is  this 
the  situation  of  things,  in  which  the  honourable  gentleman  would 
recommend  to  us  to  pause  on  our  policy — to  cease  our  efforts  on 
behalf  of  our  allies — and  to  acquiesce  in  the  injustice  and  usurpa- 
tion of  the  enemy  ? 

But  again  I  ask,  what  are  the  grounds  of  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman's despondency?  There  has  been  (says  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman) no  order,  no  plan,  no  combination  in  the  military  efforts 
of  Spain:  and  is  this  wonderful?  The  population  of  universal 
Spain,  roused  by  a  sense  of  insult  and  injury,  and  actuated  by  the 
powerful  and  heroic  determination  to  preserve  their  existence  as 
a  people,  rose  against  their  invaders,  in  different  and  distant  parts 
of  the  country,  rose  at  once,  but  without  previous  concert  or  com- 
bination. Who  could  expect  to  find  in  that  unparalleled  national 
explosion,  at  a  time,  too,  when  the  French  troops  were  in  posses- 
sion of  all  the  strong  places  of  the  kingdom,  all  the  order,  all  the 
arrangement,  all  that  efficient  organization  of  means,  and  all  that 
wise  and  judicious  application  of  them,  which  are  to  be  traced  in 
the  operations  of  governments  of  regular  constitution,  and  estab- 
lished authority,  representing  and  uniting  the  general  will,  and 
capable  of  directing  the  general  resources  of  a  country  ?  But  these 
advantages  of  regular  governments,  we  know,  have  been  frequent- 
ly more  than  counterbalanced  by  their  inherent  disadvantages  in 


VOTE   OF   CREDIT  BILL. 


123 


the  tremendous  conflicts  which,  of  late  years,  they  have  had  to 
sustain.  And  Spain,  with  the  disadvantages  which  belong  to  her, 
has  some  counterbalancing  advantages.  If  the  old  governments 
have  fallen  an  easy  prey  before  the  energies  of  regenerated  France, 
let  it  be  recollected,  as  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  observe, 
that  the  principle  from  which  these  energies  were  supposed  to 
spring,  no  longer  exists;  that  the  spirit  of  liberty  in  France  has 
been  extinguished;  that  its  republican  throes  and  convulsions  have 
quietly  subsided  into  a  military  despotism:  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Spanish  nation,  rising  in  vindication  of  its  invaded 
rights,  and  for  the  preservation  of  its  integrity  and  independence, 
is  animated  by  every  sentiment,  and  impelled  by  every  motive, 
which  can  ensure  a  determined  resistance  against  tyranny,  and  a 
steady  devotion  to  the  country's  cause.  And  whilst  the  Span- 
iards, true  to  these  motives  and  these  sentiments,  continue  to  main- 
tain the  struggle,  can  we  doubt  that  it  is  the  first  duty,  as  well  as 
the  clearest  interest  of  this  country,  to  afford  them  all  possible  as- 
sistance ? 

I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that,  if  the  object  of  this  war  wTere  one 
of  Spanish  interest  merely,  and  if  it  were  a  question  as  to  the 
claims  of  Spain  upon  this  country  for  support,  there  may  have 
been — there  undoubtedly  has  been — cause  of  dissatisfaction,  in 
the  conduct  of  the  Spanish  Government.  The  papers  upon  the  ta- 
ble, the  correspondence  of  Lord  Wellington  particularly,  show, 
that,  in  respect  to  the  reception  of  the  British  army,  there  is  great 
reason  for  complaint,  and  that,  as  between  Spain  and  England, 
Spain  has  been  much  in  the  wrong.  But  the  question  now  at  is- 
sue is  really  of  a  higher  order:  it  relates,  indeed,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, to  the  immediate  existence  of  Spain;  but  it  ultimately  and 
intimately  involves  the  most  essential  interests  of  this  country — 
and  the  hopes,  if  hope  remain,  of  subjugated,  but  yet  restless  Eu- 
rope. 

Considerations  of  such  magnitude  must  not  give  way  to  the  re- 
sentments— even  to  the  just  resentments — of  the  moment;  to  dif- 
ferences between  parties  whose  object  and  whose  interests  are  so 
closely  united.  True,  wc  have  a  good  cause  against  Spain,  and 
could  make  out  a  very  sufficient  ground  of  quarrel,  if  this  were 
the  time,  if  wc  had  at  this  moment  the  leisure,  and  if  we  had  the 
inclination  to  briiiij;  her  to  account.  But  what  is  our  case  against 
Spain  compared  with  the  case  of  Spain,  and  with  our  own  case, 
against  France?  And  to  whose  advantage  would  it  be,  but  to  that 
of  France,  if  wc  were  now  to  separate  ourselves  from  the  Spanish 
cause,  or  to  waste  in  complaint  against,  our  ally  the  season  of  ac- 
tion against  the  enemy?  Our  interests  demand  that  wc  should  de- 
fend the  Peninsula  to  the  last  extremity;  even  if  we  were  released 
by  the  conduct  of  Spain  from  all  other  obligation;  even  if  honour 


124  VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL. 

did  not  bind  us  not  to  abandon  her,  whilst  there  remains  a  possi- 
bility of  defence.  Our  citadel  lies  here,  it  is  true,  in  this  impreg- 
nable island:  but  Spain  and  Portugal  are  its  outworks;  and,  though 
I  can  have  no  doubt  of  a  glorious  triumph,  if  we  should  ever  have 
to  maintain  the  contest  in  this  country,  I  cannot  consent  to  be  a 
party  to  that  chivalrous  feeling,  that  would  retreat  from  the  out- 
works and  admit  the  enemy  to  the  gates,  in  order  that  we  might 
have  the  satisfaction  of  defeating  him  under  the  walls  of  our  for- 
tress. Our  obvious  policy,  if  policy  alone  were  in  question, 
is  to  keep  the  war  alive  in  every  quarter  where  France  has  an 
enemy  in  arms,  to  prevent  her  from  converting  those  enemies  into 
conscripts  for  her  armies,  to  fight  our  battle  with  combined,  rather 
than  against  confederated,  nations. 

This,  I  say,  would  be  the  dictate  of  policy,  even  if  we  were  to 
banish  from  the  maxims  of  a  great,  a  powerful,  and  a  generous 
nation,  those  enlarged  views  of  interest,  and  that  just  sense  of 
duty,  which  prescribe  to  us  to  resist  tyranny,  even  when  exercised 
against  others,  and  to  aid  the  oppressed,  even  though  our  aid  may 
be  unsolicited  or  unacknowledged. 

Let  us  then  continue  to  aid  Spain  in  spite  of  her  weakness,  in 
spite  even  of  her  ingratitude,  if  she  has  proved  ungrateful;  cau- 
tious where  we  have  found  reason  to  distrust  her,  but  not  eagerly 
seizing  on  every  pretext,  which  the  conduct  of  her  Government 
might  offer  for  abandoning  her  to  her  fate. 

But  the  faults  of  the  Spanish  Government,  it  is  contended,  are 
attributable  to  us — to  the  administration  in  this  country,  by  whom 
no  measures  had  been  taken  to  procure  for  Spain  a  better  form  of 
government.  Hence  the  mismanagement  of  the  internal  affairs  of 
Spain;  and  hence,  also,  the  spirit  of  jealousy  manifested  by  the 
Spaniards  towards  this  country! 

For  my  own  part,  I  am  desirous  to  claim  my  full  share  of  re- 
sponsibility for  all  the  measures  taken  by  the  administration  of 
which  I  was  a  member,  with  respect  to  Spain,  and  in  relation  to 
its  government;  a  share,  which  must  be  the  more  ample  from  my 
having  had  the  honour  to  fill  that  department,  within  the  province 
of  which  it  fell  to  advise  and  execute  whatever  measures  were 
taken  on  that  subject.  One  point  the  honourable  gentleman  will 
find  sufficiently  established  by  the  papers  laid  before  Parliament, 
that  no  pains  were  spared,  even  from  the  earliest  period  of  our 
intercourse  with  Spain,  to  obtain  the  establishment  of  a  supreme 
and  central  government,  which  should  collect  into  one  point  the 
scattered  authorities  of  the  several  provincial  juntas,  and  control, 
and  guide,  and  give  consistency  and  energy  to,  the  whole.  This 
was  made  the  condition  of  the  continuance  of  our  aid:  it  was  the 
express  and  sine  qua  non  condition  of  the  employment  of  a  Brit- 
ish army  in  Spain. 


VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL.  125 

It  is  true,  we  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  prescribe  the  precise  form 
of  the  government  so  to  be  constituted.  And  I  am  ready  to  ex- 
plain, and  to  defend  the  grounds  of  our  forbearance  in  this  partic- 
ular. But  let  the  honourable  gentleman  look  at  Mr.  Stuart's  cor- 
respondence— the  first  British  agent  sent  to  Spain.  He  will  find 
Mr.  Stuart  constantly  insisting  upon  the  establishment  of  one  uni- 
form <rovernment,  and  stating  that  as  the  condition  of  sending  a 
British  military  force  into  Spain.  At  length  this  point  was  ac- 
complished. 

As  to  the  characters  of  the  persons  composing  the  supreme 
o-overnment,  for  which  the  honourable  gentleman  would  make  me 
responsible,  because  I  was,  as  he  affirms,  the  warm  panegyrist  of 
the  Spanish  Junta,  I  beg  leave,  in  the  first  place,  to  ask  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman  by  what  possible  knowledge,  by  what  intuition, 
rather,  I  could  be  prepared,  not  only  to  stipulate  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  supreme  central  government,  but  to  dictate  the  selec- 
tion of  the  members  who  were  to  compose  it  ?  What  could  I  know 
of  them  but  from  the  communications  of  the  British  agent?  And 
when,  in  despatches  received  previously  to  the  formation  of  the 
Junta,  the  names  of  distinguished  persons  in  Spain,  of  Florida 
Blanca,  Saavedra,  and  Jovellanos,  were  stated  to  be  in  the  mouths 
of  every  body,  as  the  fittest  persons  to  be  intrusted  with  the  con- 
duct of  the  government;  and  when  I  found  by  the  first  despatch 
transmitted  after  the  establishment  of  the  government,  that  these 
persons  were  actually  appointed,  not  only  members  of  the  Junta, 
but  to  the  leading  situations  of  the  executive  government,  could 
I  possibly  have  supposed,  that  they  were  not,  as  they  had  been 
previously  represented  to  me,  the  most  proper  persons  in  Spain, 
to  whom  that  high  and  important  trust  could  have  been  commit- 
ted? or  that  the  government,  which  had  the  sanction  of  their  ap- 
probation, and  the  advantage  of  their  assistance,  was  not  the  best, 
upon  the  whole,  that  could  be  put  together  under  the  very  difficult 
circumstances  of  the  country?  The  eulogium,  therefore,  which  I 
am  accused  by  the  honourable  gentleman  of  having  pronounced 
upon  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Junta,  was  not,  because  it 
could  not  be,  the  result  of  personal  knowledge  on  my  part;  nor  was 
it  so  imposed  by  me  upon  the  1  louse:  neither  could  it  by  any  fair 
construction  render  me  in  any  degree  responsible  for  the  consist- 
ency of  their  conduct  with  the  tenor  of  my  representations.  What 
I  said  here,  was,  in  fact,  but  the  echo  of  the  voice  of  the  Spanish 
nation  conveyed  to  me  through  the  medium  of  official  reports, 
and  repeated  by  me  to  this  House  and  to  the  world.  I  conceived 
it  an  act  of  justice  to  the  Junta,  and  an  act  of  duty  to  my  coun- 
try, whose  interests  wen;  so  intimately  connected  with  the  ex- 
istence of  an  efficient  government  in    Spain,  to  afford  every  cn- 


126  VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL. 

couragement  in  my  power,  to  a  government  professing  that  char- 
acter, and  represented  to  me  as  deserving  it. 

If  the  Junta  disappointed  the  hopes  which  were  entertained  of 
it — if  it  either  wanted  the  energy  or  the  authority,  which  it  was 
intended  to  possess — undoubtedly  there  is  much  cause  for  regret; 
but  there  is  none  for  blame  as  to  the  administration  here,  unless 
it  can  be  shown,  that  some  other  form  of  government  in  Spain 
would  have  been  obviously  preferable,  and  also  could  have  been, 
with  equal  facility,  and  at  an  equally  early  period,  obtained.     For, 
let  it  not  be  forgotten  how  precious  were  the  moments  of  this 
glorious  and  unexpected  opportunity! — let  it  not  be  forgotten  that, 
while  on  the  one  hand  it  was  necessary  for  the  ultimate  and  per- 
manent success  of  the  Spanish  cause,  that  the  efforts  of  the  nation 
should  be  combined  and  directed  by  one  presiding  authority,  it 
was  no  less  necessary  for  its  immediate  safety,  that  the  enemy, 
once  taken  by  surprise,  should  not  be  allowed  to  recover  from  the 
first  shock  of  the  insurrection!    Had  we  then  time  to  pick  and 
choose,  even  if  we  had  had  the  means  of  judging,  and  had  con- 
ceived a  sound  and  rational  preference  for  one  form  of  provision- 
al government  over  another?    Were  the  feelings  of  the  country 
here  disposed  to  give  us  time  ?  What  would  my  right  honourable 
friend  (Mr.  Sheridan,)  who  has  so  repeatedly  renewed  his  notice 
of  a  motion  respecting  the  campaign  in  Spain,  and  of  whose  pres- 
ence I  should  have  been  extremely  glad  on  the  present  occa- 
sion, what  would  he  say  to  the  charge  of  the  honouranle  gentle- 
man, that  we  had  too  hastily  acquiesced  in  the  form  of  govern- 
ment established  by  the  Spaniards?  he,  who  two  years  ago,  when 
no  deputation  had  been  received  in  this  country,  except  from  the 
Asturias,  one  of  the  smallest  of  the  Spanish  provinces,  and  con- 
sisting of  a  rocky  and  mountainous  tract,  though  containing  a 
brave,  a  loyal,  and  independent  population,  reproached  the  Ad- 
ministration with  being  too  tardy  in  adopting  the  Spanish  cause, 
too  timid  in  hesitating  to  give  it  at  once  every  possible  assistance 
and  support?    I  should  wish  to  know  whether  my  right  honoura- 
ble friend,  who  then  reproached  us  for  having  paused,  before  we 
determined  to  act,  on  the  solicitation  of  a  single  province,  would 
now  condemn  us  for  having  supported  the  Spanish  people  with 
all  the  means  of  this  country,  after  deputations  had  been  received 
from  the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and  when  we  had  a  certain- 
ty of  the  whole  nation  having  determined  to  rise  as  one  man 
against  their  unprincipled  oppressors  ?  Would  he,  who  thought  us 
wanting  to  the  interests  of  this  country  and  of  the  world,  because 
we  did  not  send  fleets  and  armies  to  the  port  of  Gijon,  when  that 
port  alone  (for  aught  we  knew,)  was  open  to  us  throughout  the 
whole  coasts  of  the  Peninsula;  who  stimulated  us  to  action,  when 


VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL.  127 

a  single  principality  had  taken  up  arms  against  the  French,  and 
therewith,  for  aught  that  we  could  know,  against  the  rest  of  Spain 
also;  when,  what  turned  out  undoubtedly  to  be  a  faithful  specimen 
of  a  general  national  effort,  might  have  been,  for  aught  that  we 
could  know,  the  insulated  and  unsupported  burst  of  mere  provin- 
cial patriotism  ?  Would  he,  I  say,  or  any  rational  man,  have  de- 
sired that  when  not  Asturias,  but  all  Spain  had  declared  itself;  when 
what  might  have  been  a  partial,  proved  to  be  the  universal  senti- 
ment of  the  nation;  when  the  will  of  the  whole  country  was  ex- 
pressed beyond  the  possibility  of  misapprehension,  would  any  man 
have  thought  that  it  was  then  our  duty  to  boggle  about  the  precise 
shape  and  denomination  of  the  presiding  government,  by  which 
the  collective  will  was  to  be  provisionally  represented  and  em- 
bodied ? 

In  a  crisis  of  such  extraordinary  novelty,  and  such  transcendent 
importance;  when  interests  so  mighty  were  committed  to  the  is- 
sue of  the  struggle;  and  where  that  issue,  after  all  that  could  be 
done,  was  necessarily  so  hazardous  and  uncertain;  it  was  impossi- 
ble to  take  any  step,  or  to  offer  any  counsel,  which  must  not  at 
the  time,  be  felt  and  acknowledged  to  be  of  doubtful  and  ques- 
tionable policy;  and  to  which  it  was  not  foreseen,  that  in  the 
event  of  a  disastrous  result,  that  disaster  would  be,  however  un- 
justly, ascribed!  But  in  this  difficulty  of  choice,  were  we  to  do 
nothing,  were  we  to  counsel  nothing,  till  the  use  of  counsel  and  the 
period  of  action  were  past?  Or  were  we  at  some  risk,  but  with  a 
determined  purpose,  conscious  of  a  just  end,  though  necessarily 
less  confident  in  our  means,  to  take  the  course  which  appeared 
upon  the  whole  liable  to  the  fewest  objections? 

Gentlemen  talk  very  glibly  now  of  what  might  have  been,  and 
what  ought  to  have  been,  our  mode  of  proceeding.  Some  would 
have  done  nothing,  the  safest  opinion  of  all:  but  they  must  have 
found  another  Ministry  to  act  upon  their  opinion,  and  another 
people,  than  such  a  one  as  the  people  of  England  were  in  June 
1808,  to  countenance  and  support  them  in  doing  so. 

Some  think,  that  we  ought  to  have  insisted  upon  the  immediate 
assembling  of  the  Cortes;  some,  that  we  ought  not  to  have  ac- 
knowledged Ferdinand  at  all;  others  again,  lhat  we  ought  not  to 
have  stipulated  for  (in  truth,  we  did  not  stipulate,  they  mean  that 
we  ought  directly  to  have  discountenanced)  the  monarchical  con- 
stitution in  Spain.      A  word  upon  each  of  these  suggestions. 

And  first,  as  to  our  acknowledgment  of  Ferdinand  VII.,  or,  as 
it  is  sometimes  stated,  our  imposition  of  him  upon  the  Spanish 
people.  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  said,  that  by  acknowledging  Ferdi- 
nand VII.  as  King  of  Spain,  in  exclusion  of  his  lather,  we  thereby 
gave  a  sanction  to  the  principle  and  the  practice  of  the  revolu- 
tionary deposition  of  sovereigns;  whilst  on  the  other  hand,  we 


128  VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL. 

are  accused  of  making  the  preservation  of  monarchy  in  Spain 
the  peremptory  condition  of  our  assistance.  Nothing,  however, 
could  be  more  unfounded  than  either  and  both  of  these  charges. 
Perhaps,  in  any  other  kingdom  of  Europe,  we  should  have  been 
slow  to  recognize  the  accession  of  the  son  before  the  demise  of 
the  father.  But  in  Spain,  the  elevation  of  the  son  by  the  volun- 
tary resignation  of  the  father  is  familiar  to  the  people  by  the  re- 
corded transactions  of  some  of  the  brightest  periods  of  their  his- 
tory. There  was  therefore  no  ground  for  jealousy  at  such  an 
event,  unless  there  had  been  good  cause  for  suspicion  respecting 
the  means  by  which  it  had  been  accomplished.  The  resignation 
of  Charles  V.,  their  greatest  monarch,  and  of  Philip  V.,  the 
founder  of  the  Bourbon  Dynasty  in  Spain,  who  subsequently  re- 
sumed the  reins  of  government  on  the  death  of  his  son,  to  whom 
he  had  transferred  them,  must  be  in  the  recollection  of  every 
gentleman  who  hears  me:  and  with  these  precedents  before  us, 
and  whilst  there  existed  no  ground  whatever  for  suspicion,  the 
Government  of  this  country  was  bound  to  consider  the  resigna- 
tion of  Charles  as  voluntary,  and  the  accession  of  Ferdinand  as 
legitimate,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Spanish  monarchy.  As 
to  the  charge  of  imposing  Ferdinand,  and  in  his  person  monarchy, 
on  Spain;  why,  Sir,  the  name  of  Ferdinand  resounded  from  every 
corner  of  the  kingdom;  it  became  the  watch-word  of  Spanish 
patriotism;  the  pledge  of  popular  enthusiasm;  the  bond  and 
cement  of  national  union;  the  charm,  before  which  all  separate 
interests,  all  discordant  passions  and  prejudices  faded  away.  It 
was  no  suggestion,  no  fancy  of  ours;  we  found  this  symbol  of 
Spanish  loyalty  interwoven  with  every  part  of  the  Spanish  cause. 
It  was  the  burden  of  every  oral,  and  the  stamp  and  sanction  of 
every  written  communication,  which,  in  my  official  character,  it 
was  my  duty  and  my  happiness  to  receive  from  the  Spanish 
agents  or  ministers.  It  was  not  left  to  our  option,  whether  Spain 
should  be  a  monarchy  under  Ferdinand  VII.  If  we  had  denied 
Ferdinand  they  would  have  disclaimed  us;  if  we  had  stipulated 
against  monarchy  we  should  have  been  repudiated  by  Spain. 

I  say  not  this  as  a  matter  of  defence;  I  state  the  plain  truth. 
Upon  this  point  we  have  no  responsibility,  because  we  had 
nothing  to  decide.  Upon  every  principle  by  which  our  conduct 
could  be  guided,  whether  drawn  from  legal  precedent,  or  from 
the  unequivocal  demonstrations  of  national  feeling,  we  could  look 
upon  Ferdinand  VII.  in  no  other  light,  than  as  being  at  once  the 
lawful  Monarch  of  Spain,  by  the  established  constitution  of  the 
kingdom,  and  the  Sovereign  of  the  nation's  affections,  the  King 
of  the  people's  choice. 

But  then  we  should  have  insisted  on  the  assembling  of  the 
Cortes,  the  ancient,  legal,  recognized  estates  of  the  realm — whereas 


VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL.  129 

we  acknowledged  the  weak  and  incapable  authority  of  the  Su- 
preme Junta.  First,  as  I  have  before  argued,  what  right  had  we 
to  criticise  the  form  of  that  institution,  or  the  pretensions  of  the 
members?  Was  it  not  enough  that  we  were  assured  of  its  having 
the  sanction  and  the  confidence  of  the  Spanish  nation;  and  were 
we  not  justified  thereby  in  recognizing  the  Junta  as  representa- 
tive of  the  authority  of  the  legitimate  sovereign  during  the 
period  of  his  most  unfortunate  absence  and  captivity  ?  Let  us 
only  look  back  to  a  memorable  instance  in  our  own  history,  I 
mean  the  glorious  Revolution  of  16SS,  and  judge  what  would 
have  been  the  consequence,  if  the  proceedings  of  that  period  had 
been  criticised  with  too  scrupulous  nicety,  or  required  to  have 
been  conducted  with  all  the  solemnity  and  precision  of  the  most 
minute  forms  and  established  precedents?  What  might  have  been 
the  consequences  of  such  a  scrupulous  adherence  to  established 
ceremonials,  such  an  appeal  to  ancient  usage,  at  a  period,  when 
the  novelty  of  the  circumstances  and  the  urgency  of  the  case 
called  for  the  adoption  of  extraordinary  measures,  if  William  the 
Third  had  refused  to  take  upon  himself  the  government  before 
the  meeting  of  the  convention,  because  the  address  to  him  to  do 
so  proceeded  from  an  irregular  authority — from  a  few  members 
of  extinct  Parliaments,  gathered  together  in  haste,  with  the  lord 
mayor,  aldermen,  and  common  council  of  the  city  of  London  ; 
if  he  had  declined  taking  any  share  in  administering  the  affairs 
of  the  kingdom,  or  affording  any  assistance  to  the  nation,  until  a 
Parliament,  summoned  by  regular  writs,  and  assembled  with  all 
the  forms  of  the  constitution,  should  have  ceremoniously  invested 
him  with  the  powers  of  the  executive  government?  The  case  of 
Spain  was  still  more  urgent,  because  at  the  very  moment,  when, 
it  is  said,  we  should  have  waited  for  all  the  tardy  forms  and  all 
the  regular  process  of  the  old  constitution  of  Spain  for  the  elec- 
tion, and  assembly  of  the  Cortes,  the  French  troops  were  in  pos- 
session of  all  the  fortresses  of  the  country.  At  such  a  moment, 
it  was  rather  to  be  considered  as  miraculous,  that  the  Spaniards 
should  have  found  in  each  of  the  several  provinces  a  spot  whereon 
to  plant  the  standard  of  resistance,  than  to  be  expected,  that  they 
should  be  able  to  conduct  the  election  of  the  Cortes  with  all  the 
requisite  solemnities,  and  with  all  the  deliberation,  which  would 
have  been  necessary  to  find  out  what  those  solemnities  were. 
For  lei  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  these  same  Cortes  had  been  long 
disused;  that,  when  Inst  assembled,  they  had  been  assembled  in 
mere  form,  and  to  register  the  edicts  of  the  crown;  that  the  Cor- 
tes of  Arragon  and  Castile  have  never  been- brought  to  act  cor- 
dially together,  even  if  brought  together  at  all,  except  by  com- 
pulsory means;  thai  many  of  the  provinces,  foremost  in  the  gie.u 
struggle  against  France,  had  not  the  privilege  of  sending  repre- 


130  VOTE   OF   CREDIT  BILL. 

sentatives  to  the  Cortes;  that  Asturias  had  never  sent  any,  Gal- 
licia  seldom  if  ever — certainly  not  uniformly,  nor  of  custom  and 
right;  and  that  to  the  two  provinces  therefore,  which  were  the 
earliest  in  their  application  to  us  for  assistance,  if  we  had  answer- 
ed, "  assemble  the  Cortes,"  they  might  have  replied,  "  with  the 
Cortes  we  have  nothing  to  do;"  that  to  bring  into  shape  and  into 
action  this  grand  but  obsolete  machinery,  would  have  required 
deep  and  laborious  research  into  records  and  registers;  that  per- 
haps after  all  a  representative  might  have  been  produced  less 
satisfactory  to  the  nation  at  large,  than  that  which  sprang  from 
their  own  concurrent  though  irregular  impulse;  but  that,  at  all 
events,  much  precious  time  must  have  been  lost  in  the  process, 
and  that  while  we  were  discussing  antiquated  forms  and  adjusting 
contested  elections,  the  enemy  would  have  rallied  from  his  first 
consternation,  and  effected  the  conquest  of  the  country. 

That  the  assembling  of  the  Cortes  would  be  a  wise  and  salu- 
tary measure,  when  it  could  be  effected  peaceably  and  regularly, 
no  doubt  was  entertained;  and  accordingly  the  Junta  were  ad- 
vised, and  had  determined  to  make  it  one  of  their  first  acts.  But 
I  am  not  surprised,  for  one,  that  it  was  not  earlier  effected.  I 
doubt  whether  a  general  election  could  be  speedily  accomplished 
here  after  a  long  disuse  of  Parliaments,  and  with  an  enemy  occu- 
pying all  the  country  north  of  Trent.  And  I  cannot  but  make 
some  allowance  for  the  Spanish  Government,  when  I  recollect, 
that  at  almost  every  period  since  the  establishment  of  the  Junta, 
the  French  have  been  masters  of  Arragon  and  of  the  greatest  part 
of  the  countries  behind  Ebro. 

In   truth,  the  uniform  experience  of   all   similar   revolutions 
shows  that  time  only  and  practice  can  safely  be  relied  on  for 
modeling  and  perfecting  the  form  of  a  government,  struck  out  at 
a  heat,  as  it  were,  by  the  immediate  necessity  of  the  occasion. 
The  natural  effect  of  the  pressure  of  the  immediate  exigency  is, 
in  all  such  cases,  it  was  in  this,  to  unite  in  one  body  the  two  dis- 
tinct branches  of  the  legislative  and  executive  authority.     The 
equally  natural  tendency  of  experience  is,  to  show  the  expediency 
of  separating  these  authorities  as  soon  as  proper  depositories  can 
be  found  or  contrived  for  them.     A  Regent,  or  a  Regency,  for 
the  one,  and  the  Cortes  for  the  other,  formed  obviously  the  natu- 
ral  division   of  the   combined   authorities   of  the  Junta.      And, 
even  if  we  had  had  the  right,  and  the  leisure  to  prescribe  the 
course  which  should  be  taken,  I  doubt  whether  it  would  have 
been  wise  to  insist  upon  erecting  these  separate  powers  in  the 
first  instance;  whether  the  Junta,  or  something   like  the  Junta, 
was  not  a  necessary  stage,  preparatory  to  the  more  regular  distri- 
bution of  the  functions  of  the  government.     It  is  plain  that  the 
Regency  could  be  claimed  by  no  one,  without  something  like  the 


VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL.  131 

form  of  a  choice,  and  something,  or  somebody  to  choose  it.  And 
it  may  be  doubted,  whether,  if  the  Cortes  had  been  called  at  once, 
they  would  have  been  contented  with  their  own  share  of  author- 
ity and  power;  whether  the  Cortes  assembled  in  the  first  instance 
and  exigency  would  not  have  been,  in  fact,  a  Junta  under  another 
name.  At  any  rate,  these  were  questions  exclusively  of  domestic 
cognizance,  upon  which  it  was  neither  our  duty,  nor  our  right  to 
dictate  to  Spain,  if  we  had  been  competent  to  do  so.  Much  less 
should  we  have  been  justified  in  withholding  our  assistance,  until 
this  most  delicate,  difficult,  and  perplexing  question  should  have 
been  settled  to  our  satisfaction,  at  a  period  so  critical  to  the  exist- 
ence of  Spain  as  a  nation,  that  the  delay  of  a  moment  might  have 
been  ruin  to  the  cause. 

Such  then  were  the  principles  on  which  the  Government,  of 
which  I  was  a  member,  acted;  and  such  are  the  answers  which  I 
offer  to  the  several  clashing  and  contradictory  charges  of  having 
been  too  precipitate,  and  of  having  been  too  dilatory;  of  having 
exacted  too  much,  and  of  having  exacted  too  little  from  Spain; 
of  having  dictated  improperly  the  constitution  of  the  government, 
and  of  having  suffered  the  government  to  constitute  itself. 

The  truth  is,  that  we  interfered  to  the  extent,  to  which  we  had 
a  right  to  interfere,  and  no  further,  when  we  insisted  that  there 
should  be  a  central  government  formed,  before  a  British  army 
entered  Spain. 

Sir,  in  following  the  honourable  gentleman  next  to  his  observa- 
tions on  the  conduct  of  the  war,  I  pass  over  the  campaign  of  Sir 
John  Moore,  because  it  has  been,  heretofore,  the  subject  of  ample 
and  detailed  discussion;  and  because  the  honourable  gentleman 
himself  has  very  properly  avoided  dwelling  upon  it  this  night.  I 
come  now  therefore  to  the  operations  of  last  summer.  The  hon- 
ourable gentleman  has  condemned  in  strong  terms  the  impolicy, 
the  madness,  as  he  calls  it,  of  sending  another  army  into  Spain, 
after  the  dear-bought  and  fatal  experience  which  we  had  acquired 
in  the  campaign  which  terminated  in  the  battle  of  Corunna.  But 
here  the  honourable  gentleman  assumes  what  is  not  the  fact,  in 
order  to  make  his  unfounded  assumption  the  ground  of  a  charge 
to  which  His  Majesty's  Government  is  not  justly  liable.  The 
army  of  Lord  Wellington  was  not  sent  out  to  penetrate  into 
Spain;  it  was  sent  out  to  liberate  Portugal  from  the  yoke  of  the 
French;  to  provide  for  the  security  of  that  kingdom  against  any 
fresh  attack;  and,  so  far  as  could  be  done  consistently  with  these 
objects,  and  so  far  only,  upon  any  favourable  occasion  that  might 
be  presented,  to  co-operate  with  the  Spanish  generals  and  armies 
in  the  provinces  of  Spain,  that  border  on  the  Portuguese  frontier. 
Would  the  honourable  gentleman  then  have  left  the  British  gene- 
ral inactive  in  Portugal,  after  having  accomplished  the  first  object 


132  VOTE   OF   CREDIT  BILL. 

of  his  expedition  by  the  expulsion  of  the  enemy  from  that  coun- 
try ?  or  would  he  have  restricted  him  from  extending  the  line  of 
his  operations  with  a  view  to  the  relief  of  Spain,  when  that  could 
be  done  without  abandoning  or  endangering  the  other  object  for 
which  the  force  under  him  was  immediately  destined?  Would 
he  blame  Lord  Wellington  for  availing  himself  of  the  latitude 
given  him  by  his  instructions,  occasionally  to  lengthen  the  chain 
which  bound  him  to  the  frontiers  of  Portugal  ?  Would  he  have 
prevented  him  from  pursuing  that  course  which  brought  on  the 
battle,  and  led  to  the  brilliant  victory  of  Talavera;  a  victory 
which  covered  the  British  arms  with  unfading  laurels,  and  crown- 
ed the  gallant  general  and  his  brave  troops  with  immortal  glory  ? 
But,  says  the  honourable  gentleman,  that  victory  was  barren. 
Barren  undoubtedly  it  was,  if  you  know  no  fruits  of  victory  but 
districts  overrun,  fortresses  taken,  extent  of  territory  acquired; 
yet  not  barren  but  fruitful:  not  unproductive,  but  as  advantageous 
as  brilliant,  if  you  take  into  account,  that  it  immediately  opened 
the  gates  of  Cadiz,  and  that  it  will  hereafter  open  to  you  the  ports 
of  Spanish  America.  These  are  advantages  which  far  outweigh 
the  ordinary  military  results  of  a  victory.  But  even  were  the  effects 
of  all  our  exertions  confined  to  the  prolonging  the  struggle  against 
France  in  European  Spain,  so  thoroughly  am  I  convinced  of  the 
policy  of  supporting  that  struggle  to  the  last  extremity,  that  were 
the  question  at  this  moment  a  new  and  undecided  question;  were 
our  armies  and  our  fleets  hitherto  not  engaged,  nor  our  faith 
pledged  in  the  cause,  I  should  be  of  opinion,  that  it  would  be  the 
duty  no  less  than  it  would  be  the  interest  of  this  country,  even 
now  to  begin  our  efforts  in  aid  of  the  Peninsula,  if  now,  for  the 
first  time,  we  were  called  upon  to  begin  them. 

It  is  not,  however,  only  with  respect  to  Spain  itself,  to  the  for- 
mation and  control  of  her  Government,  and  to  the  conduct  of  the 
war  in  the  Peninsula,  that  we  are  accused  of  great  and  sinful  neg- 
ligences and  omissions,  but  with  respect  to  the  Spanish  colonies 
we  are  said  to  have  been  criminally  neglectful.  We  have  been 
told  to-night,  in  the  course  of  a  discussion  upon  another  subject, 
that  we  should  have  made  it  a  condition  of  our  alliance  with  the 
Government  of  Spain,  that  the  Spaniards  should  give  up  the  slave 
trade  in  their  colonies.  The  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Brough- 
am,) who  made  that  observation,  must  be  aware,  that  it  would 
have  been  much  easier  to  declare,  than  to  effectuate,  our  wishes  in 
such  a  case.  I  am  as  anxious  as  that  honourable  gentleman  for 
the  total  extermination  of  that  abominable  trade,  and  with  him  I 
am  ready  to  allow  that  we  ought  to  make  every  sacrifice  to  prin- 
ciple, whenever  such  sacrifice  may  be  likely  to  advance  the  prin- 
ciple* but  I  very  much  question,  whether,  by  such  a  proposition, 
prematurely   brought  forward,  we  might  not  have  thrown   the 


VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL.  133 

Spanish  colonies  into  the  arms  of  France,  without  at  all  advancing 
the  object  of  humanity.  England  and  the  abolition,  on  one  side, 
might  possibly  have  had  but  an  unfavourable  competition  against 
Buonaparte  and  unlimited  slave  trade  on  the  other,  in  bidding  for 
the  affections  of  the  colonies. 

Sir,  I  have  noticed  this  subject  incidentally,  only  to  show,  that, 
in  the  colonial,  no  less  than  in  the  European  part  of  this  great  po- 
litical question,  the  course  which  the  British  Government  have 
had  to  steer,  has  not  been  altogether  plain  sailing — has  not  been 
so  little  embarrassed  with  difficulties  of  different  kinds,  as  to  en- 
title gentlemen  to  turn  round  upon  the  King's  Ministers  and  make 
it  matter  of  charge  against  them,  that  they  have  not  provided  for 
every  interest,  and  secured  the  operation  of  every  principle,  which 
they  and  we  may  concur  in  our  desire  to  promote  and  to  main- 
tain.    It  is  true,  it  is  perfectly  true,  as  gentlemen  are  fond  of  ob- 
serving, that  Spain  is  a  country  of  prejudice  and  of  bigotry:  bigotry 
and  prejudice,  however,  not  without  their  use  in  such  a  contest  as 
that  in  which  they  are  engaged — prejudice  which  exalts  the  spirit 
of  patriotism  by  the  rooted  preference  for  their  own  manners  and 
institutions — and  bigotry,  which,  if  it  is  akin  to  intolerance  on 
one  side,  is  allied  to  perseverance  on  the  other;  which,  however 
to  be  deprecated  as  an  active  principle,  is  of  powerful  operation 
in  inspiring  resistance,  and  sustaining  courage  under  oppression. 
I  am  not  sure  that,  balancing  the  good  and  evil  of  such  qualities, 
I  would  strip  the  Spanish  nation  of  them,  in  their  present  cir- 
cumstances, if  I  could.     But  it  is  enough  for  my  argument  that  I 
could  not,  if  I  would.     And,  with  this  conviction,  nothing  can 
be  more  unreasonable  than  to  make  it  matter  of  reproach  to  the 
British  Government,  that  they  have  not,  at  the  same  time  that 
they  were  aiding  the  Spaniards  in  a  struggle  for  the  preservation 
of  the  mother  country,  been  able,  or  attempted,  to  engage  them 
to  revise  the  whole  system  of  their  colonial  polity,  to  adopt  refor- 
mations and  improvements,  which,  if  they  had  been  disposed  to 
adopt  them,  they  might  have  found  it  impossible  to  reconcile  to 
the  feelings  of  the  colonics,  and  equally  impossible  to   enforce 
against  those  feelings,  at  a  time  when  the  circumstances  of  the 
war  must  necessarily  have  loosened  the  ties  of  colonial  allegiance. 
Advice,  however,  has  not  been  withheld,  nor  has  the  Spanish 
Government  shown  itself  unwilling  to  listen  to  the  advice  which 
has  been  offered  to  them,  for  extending  privileges  to  the  colonies, 
and  uniting  them  closer  with  the  mother  country  by  community 
of  rights  and  of  interests.     To  promote  this,  union  has  been  the 
object  of  our  policy.     Some,  I  know,  are  of  opinion,  that  we 
ought  rather  to  have  played  a  separate  game  with  the  colonies. 
The  honourable  gentleman  who  spoke  last,  has  alluded  to  the  ben- 
efits, which   mighl   be  derived  to  this  country  from  a  connexion 

N 


134  VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL. 

with  Spanish  America  altogether  distinct  from  Spain.  I  have 
only  to  observe,  that  in  my  opinion,  if  any  advantages  are  to  re- 
sult to  us  from  a  connexion  with  the  Spanish  trans-atlantic  colo- 
nies, we  should  rather  wait  for  them  as  a  reversion,  as  the  reward 
of  the  success,  or  the  consolation  under  the  reverses  of  the  Eu- 
ropean struggle,  than  consider  them  as  a  temptation  to  the  prema- 
ture abandonment  of  the  mother  country.  With  these  feelings 
deeply  impressed  upon  my  mind,  I  shall  never  consent  that  the 
hand  of  Great  Britain  should  be  laid,  in  untimely  interference, 
for  the  sake  of  immediate  gain  upon  Spanish  America.  I  shall 
never  be  one  of  those,  who,  professing  the  warmest  wishes  for  the 
success  of  Spain,  would  aim  the  most  deadly  blow  at  her  exist- 
ence, by  robbing  her  of  those  foreign  dependencies,  now  more 
than  ever  necessary  to  enable  her  to  maintain  her  independence, 
by  prosecuting  to  a  successful  issue  the  mortal  contest  in  which 
she  is  engaged.  Still  less  will  I  consent  to  starve  the  Spanish 
cause,  for  the  sake  of  hastening  that  consummation  of  evil,  which, 
if  it  is  not  to  be  averted,  may  yet  be  delayed;  and  of  profiting  by 
the  rich  spoil,  which  we  may  gather  in  Spanish  America,  after 
European  Spain  has  fallen.  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  contemplate 
the  fate  of  Spain,  as  our  inimitable  dramatic  poet  describes  one  of 
his  most  exquisitely  drawn  characters,  Shylock,  contemplating 
the  fate  of  his  daughter,  who  had  fled  from  him  with  a  heap  of 
gold  and  jewels — while  he  is  lamenting  her  flight,  and  his  friends 
undertake  to  console  him  with  the  hope,  that  after  all  she  may  be 
still  alive,  he  presently  undeceives  them  as  to  the  real  cause  of  his 
wailing.  It  is  not  his  daughter,  but  his  treasure,  that  is  upper- 
most in  his  thoughts.  "  As  for  her,"  says  he,  "  would  she  lay 
dead  at  my  feet,  with  the  jewels  in  her  ear;  would  she  were  cof- 
fined at  my  feet,  so  that  my  ducats  were  in  her  coffin!"  So  it  is 
that  the  honourable  gentleman  and  others  appear  to  think  of  Spain: 
they  think  of  the  money  that  she  has  cost  us;  they  think  of  the 
little  return  in  profit  that  she  has  made  to  us;  they  look  to  the  ad- 
vantages, which  we  may  hope  to  inherit  after  her  struggle  is  well 
over;  and  they  are  disposed  rather  to  blame  the  obstinacy  of  that 
struggle,  and  to  deplore  the  length  of  that  agony,  which  keeps  us 
out  of  our  expected  inheritance. 

And  yet,  Sir,  surely  the  coldest  heart,  the  most  calculating 
head,  cannot  but  be  warmed  and  exalted  by  such  a  spectacle  as 
Spain  affords  to  the  world!  There  can  surely  be  but  one  feeling 
in  this  House  with  regard  to  the  character  of  the  Spanish  cause: 
no  man  can  entertain  a  doubt  that  a  contest  of  such  a  description 
ought  to  succeed:  and,  if  in  spite  of  all  the  difficulties,  which  the 
Spaniards  have  had  to  encounter  (and  formidable  those  difficulties 
have  been,)  they  have  contended  with  unbroken  spirit,  though 
with  various  fortunes,  against  the  gigantic  power  of  France,  in  a 


VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL.  135 

manner,  and  for  a  period,  to  shame  by  the  comparison  the  efforts 
of  almost  all  the  nations  of  the  continent,  I  must  again  ask,  why 
are  we  to  despair  ?  I  cannot  bring  myself  yet  to  despair  of  the 
ultimate  success  of  Spain,  because  I  would  fain  believe  in  the  suc- 
cess of  any  people,  that  shall  act  upon  the  same  principle,  and 
persevere  with  the  same  courage,  in  so  righteous  a  cause;  because 
I  would  not  despair  of  ourselves  under  similar  circumstances. 

If  the  enemy  should  pass  those  outworks,  which  the  line  ol 
policy  recommended  by  the  honourable  gentleman  opposite  (Mr. 
Whitbread,)  would  level:  if  ever  we  shall  have  to  contend  against 
that  enemy  on  British  ground,  I  trust  that  our  resistance  will  be 
signal,  and  his  defeat  certain:  but  I  doubt  how  far  we  can  expect 
to  exceed  the  example  which  is  set  to  us  by  the  Spaniards.  In 
prowess  in  the  field,  no  doubt  we  shall,  and  must  exceed  them, 
because  that  depends  upon  a  variety  of  circumstances  and  advan- 
tages, which  the  Spanish  nation  did  not  possess;  not  on  valour 
only,  but  on  skill — on  discipline  in  the  soldier — on  science  and 
experience  in  the  oificer — and,  above  all,  upon  an  efficient  Gov- 
ernment to  organize  the  establishments,  to  provide  for  the  accom- 
modation, and  to  direct  the  movements  of  the  various  masses  of 
individuals  that  compose  an  army.  In  these  particulars,  unques- 
tionably we  shall  have  greatly  the  advantage  of  the  Spaniards; 
but  in  other  qualities,  not  less  essentially  necessary  for  maintain- 
ing a  defensive  struggle — in  firmness  under  defeat — in  content- 
ment under  privations — in  patience  and  long  suffering,  we  may 
equal,  but  I  doubt,  if  we  can  go  beyond  them. 

Let  any  gentleman  who  hears  me,  ask  his  own  mind,  and  ask 
impartially  whether  he  can  answer  for  the  town  or  city  near  which 
he  lives,  that  if  attacked  in  the  same  way,  it  would  rival  in  its 
defence  the  heroic  perseverence  of  Saragossa  or  Gerona?  If  any 
man,  who  confides  (as  I  trust  every  man  does)  in  the  ability  of 
this  country  to  defend  itself  against  any  force  of  the  enemy,  yet 
hesitates  how  far  he  can  answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative, 
that  man  has  no  right  to  despair  of  the  eventual  triumph  of  Spain. 

The  contest  is  not  at  an  end.  The  French,  it  cannot  be  denied, 
have  gained  very  considerable  advantages,  and  the  Spaniards  have 
on  the  other  hand  suffered  most  severely.  But  the  fortress  of  Ca- 
diz, containing  the  principal  arsenal  and  the  principal  naval  means 
of  Spain,  and  garrisoned  in  part  by  British  troops,  detains  before 
it  a  large  portion  of  the  French  army;  no  impression  of  a  serious 
nature  has  been  made  upon  the  defences  of  that  important  place; 
every  day  brings  fresh  accounts  of  the  unabated  enthusiasm  dis- 
played by  the  population  of  the  various  provinces;  the  French 
troops  are  harassed  in  their  movements,  and  straitened  in  their 
quarters,  by  the  desultory  activity  of  the  Spanish  peasants;  their 
supplies  cut  off,  and  their  communications  intercepted:  place  all 


136  VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL. 

these  things  before  your  eyes,  and  then  say,  if  it  be  at  such  a 
time,  and  under  such  circumstances,  that  we  are  to  withdraw  our- 
selves from  the  support  of  Spain,  and  to  leave  the  Peninsula  to 
the  mercy  of  its  ruthless  oppressors  ? 

I  have  said  that  there  is  a  British  garrison  in  Cadiz.  I  admit 
to  the  honourable  gentlemen  that  some  jealousy  has  been  mani- 
fested by  the  Spanish  Government  upon  this  subject.  I  must, 
however,  in  this  respect,  do  justice  to  the  Spanish  Government. 
It  is  true,  that  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  press  earnestly  for  the  ad- 
mittance of  a  British  force  into  Cadiz,  after  the  failure  of  the  first 
campaign,  and  to  make  that  admittance  the  sine  qua  non  condi- 
tion of  ever  again  sending  British  troops  into  Spain.  It  is  equal- 
ly true,  that  the  Spanish  Government  would  not  at  that  time  con- 
sent to  receive  them.  But  it  is  no  less  true,  that  in  such  refusal, 
and  in  the  explanation  given  of  the  cause  of  it,  I  did  not  find  any 
just  ground  for  supposing  that  it  had  proceeded  from  distrust  in 
the  British  Government.  A  Government,  depending  for  its  ex- 
istence, and  certainly  for  its  authority,  wholly  upon  public  opinion, 
and  aware  of  the  jealousy,  (for  some  jealousy  of  us  did  most  cer- 
tainly prevail  amongst  the  people  of  Spain,)  with  which  the  na- 
tion might  view  the  introduction,  at  that  critical  period,  of  foreign 
troops  into  one  of  their  most  important  naval  stations,  might  feel 
itself  obliged  to  decline  opening  the  gates  of  Cadiz  to  a  British 
corps,  until  an  adequate  and  obvious  necessity  for  that  measure 
had  arisen.  But  although  the  admittance  of  our  troops  was  in 
the  first  instance  refused  on  these  grounds,  I  never  had  a  doubt, 
but  that  they  would  be  received  whenever  the  necessity  became 
obvious.  The  period  of  necessity  has  since  arrived,  and  the 
event  has  most  fully  justified  my  expectation.  Cadiz  is  now  oc- 
cupied by  British  conjointly  with  Spanish  troops:  the  pledge  of 
that  alliance  by  which  Spain  may  yet  be  rescued  and  saved.  Whilst 
Cadiz  is  safe,  Spain  is  not  lost;  and  while  all  is  not  yet  lost,  all  is 
ultimately  retrievable. 

The  French  army  has  achieved  and  may  continue  to  achieve 
the  conquest  of  province  after  province;  but  it  has  not  been,  and 
will  not  be  able  to  maintain  such  conquests  in  a  country,  where 
the  influence  of  the  conqueror  does  not  extend  beyond  the  limits 
of  his  military  posts!  where  authority  is  confined  within  the  for- 
tresses which  he  garrisons,  or  the  cantonments  which  he  occupies; 
where  all  that  is  behind  him,  and  before  him,  and  around  him,  is 
sullen  discontent,  and  meditated  vengeance — unconquerable  re- 
sistance, and  inextinguishable  hate. 

And  if  the  Spaniards  have  their  sufferings  to  endure,  at  what 
price  do  the  French  carry  on  this  war?  At  a  price  which  no 
former  war  with  the  other  Powers  of  Europe  has  ever  cost  them. 
The  honourable  gentleman  indeed,  has  lamented,  that  we  should 


VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL.  137 

be  parties,  as  he  expressed  himself,  to  the  system  of  warfare  pur- 
sued by  the  Spaniards,  which  he  describes  as  transgressing  the 
limits  of  legitimate  hostility.  I  would  entreat  the  House  to  con- 
trast that  sentiment  with  what  fell  from  the  same  honourable  gen- 
tleman in  a  former  debate,  when  another  honourable  member  de- 
tailed to  the  House  the  abominable  atrocities  committed  by  the 
French  on  their  approach  to  the  Isle  of  Leon.  On  that  occasion 
the  honourable  gentleman  affected  to  discredit  the  statement  of 
crimes  so  shocking  in  the  recital,  and  warmly  deprecated  the  in- 
troduction of  such  horrible  details  into  the  discussions  in  this 
House,  lest  their  circulation  should  have  the  effect  of  substituting 
wicked  enormities  of  that  description  for  the  more  humane  spirit 
of  generous  warfare'.  Generous  warfare!  Good  God!  the  gener- 
ous warfare  begun  by  Buonaparte  against  unoffending  Spain!  the 
generosity  of  him, — the  outrageous  violator  of  every  sacred  obli- 
gation, the  bloody  and  unfeeling  destroyer  of  the  rights  of  sove- 
reigns, and  the  independence  of  nations!  Far  am  I,  as  far  as  any 
man,  from  justifying  the  commission,  under  any  circumstances, 
of  excesses,  which  deform  the  character,  and  brutalise  the  feelings 
of  man.  But  the  crime  and  the  shame  are  in  the  original  perpe- 
trator. There  are  insults  and  injuries,  which  to  have  endured  at 
the  hand  of  an  oppressor,  degrades  a  man  in  his  own  esteem,  and 
forces  him  to  recover  his  level  by  a  signal  and  terrible  revenge. 
Such  are  the  inflictions,  which  the  French  armies  have  poured 
out  upon  the  Spaniards.  If  ever  acts  of  ferocious  retaliation 
might  admit  of  extenuation,  it  is  in  such  a  cause,  and  upon  such 
provocation  as  they  have  received,  from  an  enemy  unrestrained 
in  his  career  of  ambition  and  blood,  by  any  law  human  or  divine. 

Such  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  justification  of  the  Spaniards 
Thus  they  defend  and  avenge  their  invaded  country — their  pil- 
laged and  desolated  homes — their  murdered  parents — their  vio- 
lated wives  and  daughters — and  who  shall  say,  that  such  ven- 
geance is  not  justified  in  the  eyes  of  God  and  man?  Who  shall 
pretend  that  the  assailant  of  unoffending  and  defenceless  inno- 
cence is  privileged  from  resistance  or  retaliation;  that  the  invader 
has  a  right  to  make  his  inroad  when  he  thinks  fit,  to  commit 
what  excesses  he  pleases; — but  that  he  is  only  to  be  met  in  the 
listed  field  and  by  regular  battalions — that  the  cottage  or  the  altar 
are  to  be  defended  or  avenged  only  by  an  enrolled  soldiery;  that 
the  peaceful  population  of  a  country  must  be  passive  under  every 
species  of  outrage  and  of  wrong? 

That  our  army  has  had  any  share  in  committing  or  countenanc- 
ing such  excesses  is  not  pretended,  and  would  not  admit  of  ex- 
cuse. Our  business  with  the  enemy  is  in  the  field.  But  that  1 
should,  therefore,  whine  over  his  sufferings  and  his  losses — that  I 
should  deny  or  disguise  the  satisfaction  which  I  derive  from  the 
20  N* 


138  VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILE. 

consideration  that  every  French  soldier,  who  falls  a  sacrifice  to 
Spanish  vengeance,  is  one  oppressor  the  less,  for  the  rest  of  the 
nations  of  the  world — would  be  a  hypocrisy,  which  I  disdain. 
Long  may  the  struggle  be!  And  be  its  course  as  deathful  to  the 
French  armies  as  heretofore!  One  French  army  has  already  been 
worn  down  and  destroyed  in  Spain:  and  I  know  no  precept  of 
humanity  that  forbids  me  to  exult  in  the  prospect  of  a  similar  fate 
awaiting  those  who  are  now  the  instruments  of  tyranny  and 
violence. 

War  is  unavoidably  attended  with  calamities,  as  well  as  with 
glories.  Its  glories  are  sullied  and  darkened  by  its  calamities: 
its  calamities  redeemed — or  in  part  redeemed — by  its  glories. 
But  if  we  accustom  ourselves  to  look  only  at  one  side  of  the  pic- 
ture in  the  case  of  an  enemy,  and  at  the  other  in  our  own; — at  all 
that  is  gloomy  on  one  part,  and  all  that  is  brilliant  on  the  other — 
if  we  count  for  the  enemy  all  that  he  gains,  and  all  that  we  lose 
— but  for  ourselves  only  our  positive  gains,  without  admitting 
into  the  account  the  losses  of  the  enemy:  against  such  a  mode  of 
calculating  results,  no  spirit  can  long  stand  unimpaired: — we  go 
to  the  field  already  half  subdued:  we  may  entitle  ourselves  to 
commendation  for  the  fineness  of  our  sympathies;  but  we  are  ut- 
terly unfitted  for  continuing  the  contest. 

I  fear  that  I  may  have  detained  the  House  to  an  unpardonable 
length  upon  the  subject  of  Spain;  though  I  feel  it  even  now  diffi- 
cult to  tear  myself  from  it.  I  hope,  however,  that  my  excuse 
for  having  dwelt  upon  it  so  long  may  be  found  in  the  share  which 
I  personally  had  in  the  counsels  and  measures  of  this  Gov- 
ernment at  the  commencement  of  the  Spanish  struggle,  and  in 
the  desire,  which  I  naturally  feel,  that  these  counsels  and  mea- 
sures should  be  distinctly  and  fairly  understood;  but,  above  all, 
in  my  earnest  zeal  for  the  success  of  our  allies,  and  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  our  effective  support  of  a  cause  involving  as  much 
our  interests  as  our  glory. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  follow  the  honourable  gentleman  briefly 
into  one  or  two  of  the  other  topics,  to  which  he  has  alluded.  As 
to  the  statements  made  by  the  honourable  gentleman  with  respect 
to  Sicily;  to  the  disaffection  of  its  inhabitants;  to  the  probable 
change  in  the  policy  of  the  Sicilian  Government,  and  the  conse- 
quent critical  situation  of  the  British  army  in  that  island,  I  shall 
only  assert,  as  an  individual  (having  no  official  knowledge  to  sup- 
port my  assertion,)  that  I  believe  his  opinions  and  his  apprehen- 
sions to  be  unfounded.  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  corres- 
pondence open  between  Buonaparte  and  the  Queen  of  Naples. 
I  have  not  seen  the  letter  to  which  the  honourable  gentleman 
refers,  but  from  the  description  of  it,  I  should  doubt  if  it  be 
genuine. 


VOTE  OF   CREDIT  BILL-  139 

As  to  the  effect  of  the  Austrian  marriage  upon  the  politics  of 
the  court  of  Palermo,  I  cannot  oblige  the  honourable  gentleman 
to  forego  his  conjecture,  though  I  do  not  agree  with  him  in  it.  I 
will  only  say  by  the  way,  that  I  am  glad  to  miss,  in  the  honourable 
gentleman's  speech  of  to-night,  the  epithet  of  "felix,"  which  he 
applied  on  a  former  night  to  this  inauspicious  alliance.  The 
painter  of  old,  when  he  drew  the  picture  of  the  sacrifice  of 
Iphigenia,  despairing  to  express  the  workings  of  anguish  and 
shame  in  the  countenance  of  the  father,  by  whom  she  was  sacri- 
ficed, hid  Agamemnon's  face  in  his  robe;  so  would  I  have  the 
honourable  gentleman  deal  on  this  occasion  with  the  Emperor  of 
Austria,  and,  at  least,  not  insult  his  paternal  feelings  by  ascribing 
to  them  the  character  of  "  felicity." 

But  whatever  may  be  the  soundness  of  the  honourable  gentle- 
man's speculations  in  respect  to  the  ultimate  policy  and  conduct. 
of  the  court  of  Sicily,  I  am  not  prepared  to  recommend  the  anti- 
cipation of  treachery:  I  cannot  agree,  therefore,  with  the  honour- 
able gentleman  to  withhold  the  Vote  of  Credit,  unless  part  of  it 
should  be  expended  in  defeating  the  designs  of  the  enemy  upon 
Sicily,  and  keeping  him  out  of  possession  of  it  too  long.  I  am 
still  less  prepared  (even  if  that  were  a  cheap  expedient)  to  seize 
on  Sicily  for  ourselves. 

From  Sicily — declaring,  that  in  Europe  he  sees  nothing  to  re- 
quire or  justify  so  large  a  Vote  of  Credit — the  honourable  gen- 
tleman passes  to  America,  and  specifically  objects  to  the  Vote  of 
Credit,  on  the  ground,  that  a  war  with  the  United  States  is  no 
longer  probable.  I  hope  and  trust  it  is  not.  The  recent  proceed- 
ings of  Congress  have  effected  so  much  of  what  it  was  the  anxious 
wish  of  the  Government,  of  which  I  was  a  member,  to  attain, 
that  I  trust  all  our  differences  with  America  may  be  speedily 
adjusted.  In  truth  I  bad  never  much  doubt  upon  my  mind,  that 
America,  if  left  to  her  own  policy,  and  to  the  effect  of  those  dis- 
cussions which  would  take  place  in  her  own  legislatures,  general 
and  provincial,  would  at  no  distant  period  arrive  at  that  point,  at 
which  by  the  late  act  of  Congress,  she  appears  to  have  arrived. 
No  man  is  more  anxious  than  I  am  for  an  amicable  accommodation 
with  that  Power.  Put  I  trust,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  change 
in  the  policy  of  the  United  Stales  has  not  been  effected  by  any 
improper  concessions  on  our  part;  a  circumstance,  which  I  can 
fully  disclaim,  during  the  period  that  I  remained  in  office.  I 
should  rather  hope,  that  it.  has  been  the  consequence  of  a  deter- 
mined adherence  to  that  system,  which  has  been  so  often  declaim- 
ed against  in  this  House,  but  which  has  proved  as  clearly  benefi- 
cial to  the  commercial  interests,  as  it  has  been  consistent  with  the 
political  dignity  of  this  nation. 

The  honourable  gentleman  has  introduced  into  this  part  of  the 


140  VOTE  OF  CREDIT  BILL. 

discussion  a  reference  to  the  instructions  given  to  our  Minister  to 
the  United  States  (Mr.  Erskine,)  upon  which  it  was  not  my  wish 
to  have  touched,  if  the  honourable  gentleman  had  not  forced  me 
to  do  so,  because  I  cannot  touch  upon  it  without  speaking  unfa- 
vourably of  the  conduct  of  a  gentleman  towards  whom  I  enter- 
tain no  feeling  of  hostility  whatever.  But,  as  the  honourable 
gentleman  has  thought  proper  again  to  advert  to  the  subject,  I 
am  compelled,  in  my  own  defence,  again  to  assert,  as  I  have  re- 
peatedly before  asserted,  that  Mr.  Erskine,  in  the  arrangement 
which  he  concluded  with  the  American  Government,  did  violate 
both  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  instructions  under  which  he 
acted.  That  he  violated  the  letter  of  his  instructions,  is  admitted 
by  every  body — by  the  honourable  gentleman  himself.  Mr.  Er- 
skine was  expressly  directed  to  do  certain  things,  which  he  did 
not  do.  But  it  was  not,  as  the  honourable  gentleman  insinuates, 
a  mere  formal  error — a  merely  literal  mistake.  Mr.  Erskine 
violated  the  spirit  of  his  instructions,  because,  being  authorized 
to  concede  certain  points  to  the  American  Government,  in  con- 
sideration only  of  concessions  to  be  by  them  reciprocally  and 
simultaneously  made,  he  did  that  absolutely,  which  he  was  in- 
structed to  do  only  conditionally,  and  thereby  lowered  the  tone 
and  just  pretensions  of  his  country.  I  am  still  ready,  as  I  ever 
have  been,  to  go  into  the  full  discussion  of  this  question,  when- 
ever the  honourable  gentleman  may  think  proper;  but  unless  he 
should  advert  to  it  again  I  shall  now  take  a  final  leave  of  it,  and 
never  again  revive  it. 

Sir,  I  have  now  only  to  add,  with  respect  to  the  Bill  before 
the  House,  that  it  is  not  because  I  think  that  a  war  is  to  be  ap- 
prehended with  America,  or  that  a  question  may  arise  as  to  the 
abandonment  or  seizure  of  the  island  of  Sicily,  that  I  assent  to 
the  Vote  of  Credit;  but  because  I  wish  to  enable  His  Majesty's 
Ministers  to  aid  to  the  utmost  extent  to  maintain  to  the  last  ex 
tremity  the  contest  in  Portugal  and  Spain,  and  also  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  any  opportunities  which  may  arise  from  the  annoy- 
ance of  the  enemy,  and  for  which,  without  a  Vote  of  Credit,  they 
might  be  unprovided.  For  the  application  of  the  means,  which  this 
Vote  entrusts  to  them,  the  Ministers  are  responsible.  And  I  can 
assure  the  honourable  gentleman,  that,  if  he  and  his  friends  had 
now  the  conduct  of  the  Government,  for  the  same  purposes,  and 
under  the  like  resposibility,  I  should  not  be  disposed  to  withhold 
from  them  that  degree  of  confidence  (whatever  it  be)  which  this 
Vote  may  be  construed  to  imply. 

After  some  discussion,  the  Bill  was  read  a  third  time  and  passed. 


141 


ON  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  BULLION 
COMMITTEE. 

MAY,  8th,  1811. 

Mr.  Horner,  as  Chairman  of  the  Bullion  Committee,  moved  the  following 
Resolutions : — 

First — That  the  only  money  which  can  be  legally  tendered  in  Great  Britain, 
for  any  sum  above  twelve-pence  in  the  whole,  is  made  either  of  gold  or  silver; 
and  that  the  weight,  standard,  and  denomination,  at  which  any  such  money  is 
authorized  to  pass  current,  is  fixed,  under  His  Majesty's  prerogative,  according 
to  law. 

Second. — That  since  the  forty-third  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
the  Indentures  of  His  Majesty's  Mint  have  uniformly  directed  that  all  silver 
used  for  coin  should  consist  of  eleven  ounces  two  pennyweights  of  fine  silver, 
and  eighteen  pennyweights  of  alloy  in  each  pound  troy;  and  that  the  said 
pound  troy  should  be  divided  into  sixty-two  shillings,  or  into  other  coins  in  that 
proportion. 

Third. — That  since  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Charles  the  Sec- 
ond, the  Indentures  of  His  xMajesty's  Mint  have  uniformly  directed,  that  all 
gold  used  for  coin,  should  consist  of  eleven  ounces  of  pure  gold  and  one  ounce 
of  alloy  in  each  pound  troy;  and  that  the  said  pound  troy  should  be  divided  and 
coined  into  forty-four  guineas  and  one  half  guinea,  or  into  other  coins  in  that 
proportion. 

Fourth. — That  by  a  proclamation  of  the  fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  King 
George  the  First,  it  was  ordered  and  directed,  that  guineas  and  the  several 
other  gold  coins  therein  named,  should  be  current  at  the  rates  and  values  then 
set  upon  them ;  viz.  The  guinea  at  the  rate  of  twenty-one  shillings,  and  other 
gold  coins  in  the  same  proportion :  thereby  establishing,  that  the  gold  and  silver 
coins  of  the  realm  should  be  a  legal  tedder  in  all  money  payments,  and  a 
standard  measure  for  ascertaining  the  value  of  all  contracts  for  the  payment  of 
money  in  the  relative  proportion  of  15^$j  pounds  weight  of  sterling  silver  to 
one  pound  of  sterling  gold. 

Fifth.— That  by  a  statute  of  the  fourteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  His  present 
Majesty,  subsequently  revived  and  made  perpetual  by  a  statute  of  the  thirty- 
ninth  year  of  his  reign,  it  is  enacted,  that  no  tender  in  payment  of  money  made 
in  the  silver  coin  of  this  realm,  of  any  sum  exceeding  the  sum  of  twenty-five 
pounds  at  any  one  time,  shall  be  reputed  in  law,  or  allowed  to  be  a  legal  ten- 
der, within  Great  Britain  or  Ireland,  for  more  than,  according  to  its  value  by 
weight,  after  the  rate  of  5*.  2d.  for  each  ounce  of  silver. 

Sixth. — That  by  a  proclamation  of  the  sixteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  His 
present  Majesty,  confirmed  by  several  subsequent  Proclamations,  it  was  ordered 
and  directed,  tliat  if  the  weight  of  any  guinea  shall  be  less  than  five  penny- 
weights eight  grains,  such  guinea  shall  cease  to  be  a  legal  tender  for  the  pay- 
ment of  any  money  within  Great  Britain  or  Ireland;  and  so  in  the  same  pro- 
portion for  any  other  gold  coin. 

Seventh. — That  under  these  laws  (which  constitute  the  established  policy 
of  this  realm  in  regard  to  money,)  no  contract  or  undertaking  for  the  payment 
of  money,  stipulated  to  be  paid  in  pounds  sterling,  or  in  good  and  lawful  money 
of  Great  Britain,  can  he  Legally  satisfied  and  discharged  in  gold  coin,  unless  the 
coin  tendered  shall  weigh  in  the  proportion  of  .;','  parts  of  five  pennyweights 


142  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

eight  grains  of  standard  gold  for  each  pound  sterling,  specified  in  the  said  con- 
tract; nor  in  silver  coin,  for  a  sum  exceeding  twenty-five  pounds,  unless  such 
coin  shall  weigh  in  the  proportion  of  f-|  of  a  pound  troy  of  standard  silver  for 
each  pound  sterling  specified  in  the  contract. 

Eighth. — That  the  promissory  notes  of  the  Bank  of  England  are  stipulations 
to  pay,  on  demand,  the  sum  in  pounds  sterling,  respectively  specified  in  each 
of  the  said  notes. 

Ninth. — That  when  it  was  enacted  by  the  authority  of  Parliament,  that  the 
payment  of  the  prommissory  notes  of  the  Bank  of  England,  in  cash,  should  for 
a  time  be  suspended,  it  was  not  the  intention  of  Parliament  that  any  alteration 
whatsoever  should  take  place  in  the  value  of  such  promissory  notes. 

Tenth. — That  it  appears,  that  the  actual  value  of  the  promissory  notes  of  the 
Bank  of  England  (measuring  such  value  by  weight  of  standard  gold  and  silver 
as  aforesaid)  has  been,  for  a  considerable  period  of  time,  and  still  is,  considera- 
bly less  than  what  is  established  by  the  laws  of  the  realm  to  be  the  legal  ten- 
der in  payment  of  any  money  contract  or  stipulation. 

Eleventh. — That  the  fall  which  has  thus  taken  place  in  the  value  of  the 
promissory  notes  of  the  Bank  of  England,  and  in  that  of  the  country  bank  pa- 
per which  is  exchangeable  for  it,  has  been  occasioned  by  too  abundant  issue  of 
paper  currency,  both  by  the  Bank  of  England,  and  by  the  country  banks;  and 
that  this  excess  has  originated,  from  the  want  of  that  check  and  control  on  the 
issues  of  the  Bank  of  England,  which  existed  before  the  suspension  of  cash 
payments. 

Twelfth. — That  it  appears  that  the  exchanges  with  foreign  parts  have  for  a 
considerable  period  of  time  been  unfavourable  to  this  country,  in  an  extraordi- 
nary degree. 

Thirteenth. — That,  although  the  adverse  circumstances  of  our  trade,  togeth- 
er with  the  large  amount  of  our  military  expenditure  abroad,  may  have  con- 
tributed to  render  our  exchanges  with  the  continent  of  Europe  unfavourable; 
yet  the  extraordinary  degree,  in  which  the  exchanges  have  been  depressed  for 
so  long  a  period,  has  been  in  a  great  measure  occasioned  by  the  depreciation 
which  has  taken  place  in  the  relative  value  of  the  currency  of  this  country,  as 
compared  with  the  money  of  foreign  countries. 

Fourteenth. — That  during  the  continuance  of  the  suspension  of  cash  pay- 
ments, it  is  the  duty  of  the  Directors  of  the  Bank  of  England,  to  advert  to  the 
state  of  the  Foreign  Exchanges,  as  well  as  to  the  price  of  bullion,  with  a  view 
to  regulate  the  amount  of  their  issues. 

Fifteenth. — That  the  only  certain  and  adequate  security  to  be  provided, 
against  an  excess  of  paper  curreucy,  and  for  maintaining  the  relative  value  of 
the  circulating  medium  of  the  realm,  is  the  legal  convertibility,  upon  demand, 
of  all  paper  currency  into  lawful  coin  of  the  realm. 

Sixteenth. — That  in  order  to  revert  gradually  to  this  security,  and  to  enforce 
meanwhile  a  due  limitation  of  the  paper  of  the  Bank  of  England,  as  well  as  of 
all  the  other  bank  paper  of  the  country,  it  is  expedient  to  amend  the  act  which 
suspends  the  cash  payments  of  the  Bank,  by  altering  the  time,  till  which  the 
suspension  shall  continue,  from  six  months  after  the  ratification  of  a  definitive 
treaty  of  peace,  to  that  of  two  years  from  the  present  time. 


Mr.  Canning. — After  the  ample  discussion  which  this  question 
has  undergone,  I  rise,  Sir,  not  in  the  presumption  that  I  am  able 
to  add  any  thing  to  the  information  which  the  Committee  has  al- 
ready received  from  gentlemen  the  best  qualified  by  their  talents 
and  their  acquirements,  by  their  professional  pursuits  and  their 
official  situations,  to  throw  light  upon  the  subject  in  all  its  princi- 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE. 


143 


pies  and  details;  but  simply  for  the  purpose  of  stating  the  grounds 
of  my  own  vote  upon  the  several  propositions  which  are  submit- 
ted to  our  consideration. 

In  discharging  this  duty — a  duty  which  I  feel  to  be  incumbent 
upon  me  as  a  Member  of  Parliament — I  beg  to  be  considered  as 
speaking  in  that  character  only;  as  delivering  freely  and  honestly, 
a  sincere  and  unbiassed  opinion,  upon  a  question  so  important, 
that  I  did  not  think  myself  at  liberty  to  let  it  pass  without  form- 
ing, to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  some  opinion  upon  it;  as  neither 
adopting  nor  countenancing  the  prejudices  of  any  set  of  men 
whatever;  as  neither  the  advocate  nor  the  antagonist  of  the  Bul- 
lion Committee;  neither  the  advocate  nor  the  antagonist  of  the 
Bank. 

With  respect  to  both  those  bodies,  I  firmly  believe,  that  they 
have,  each  according  to  their  measure,  performed  conscientiously 
a  very  difficult  duty. 

Of  the  Bank  it  is  always  to  be  remembered,  that  the  condition 
in  which  they  have  found  themselves  has  been  none  of  their  own 
seeking;  that  the  original  restriction,  in  1797,  was  imposed  upon 
them  by  Parliament,  upon  their  own  showing  indeed  of  their  dif- 
ficulties— difficulties,  however,  arising  out  of  circumstances  over 
which  the  Bank  had  no  control;  and  that  the  restriction  was  re- 
newed after  they  had  declared  their  readiness  to  resume  their 
payments  in  cash.  Of  the  necessity  of  the  first  restriction  I  have 
no  doubt:  of  the  policy  of  the  terms  upon  which  it  was  last  re- 
newed, I  certainly  entertain  great  doubts;  but  the  error  of  that 
policy,  whatever  it  may  have  been,  is  not  justly  to  be  visited  on 
the  Bank.  Placed,  as  the  Directors  of  the  Bank  have  been  by 
the  effect  of  that  last  renewal,  and  by  the  events  which  have  since 
occurred,  in  a  situation  perfectly  novel;  having — from  the  mere 
managers  of  the  affairs  of  a  great  money  corporation, — become,  by 
the  force  of  circumstances,  the  sole  issuers  and  regulators  of  the 
whole  currency  of  the  country; — it  is  surely  not  to  be  wondered  at 
that,  in  such  a  situation,  they  may  have  found  the  maxims  of  their 
original  and  habitual  occupation  cither  inapplicable  to  their  new 
and  enlarged  sphere  for  action,  or  insufficient  for  it;  and  may  have 
committed  mistakes  in  the  exercise  of  one  of  the  highest  prerog- 
atives of  the  Sovereign,  which  they  would  easily  have  avoided  in 
conducting  the  concerns  of  their  constituents.  If  they  have  fall- 
en into  such  errors,  I  am  not  inclined  to  blame  them.  I  would 
correct  the  errors,  but  without  imputation  on  the  men. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  must  as  fairly  confess  that  I  think  the 
Bullion  Committee  has  been  hardly  dealt  with  in  the  course  of 
these  discussions.  A  stranger  who  had  derived  his  only  knowl- 
edge of  the  'use  front  the  debates  of  the  two  last  nights,  would 
almost  have  been  led  to  imagine  that  the  Bullion  Committee  was 


144  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

some  strange  and  self-erected  power,  wholly  extrinsic  to  the  con- 
stitution, and  independent  of  the  control  of  this  House;  who, 
without  commission,  and  without  provocation,  had  thought  fit  to 
intermeddle  in  the  affairs  of  the  Government  and  of  the  Bank, 
and  to  attempt  the  subversion  of  a  system  not  only  eminently 
beneficial,  but  confessedly  without  fault,  without  mischief,  and 
without  danger;  a  system  with  which  all  the  world  was  perfectly 
satisfied  in  all  its  parts,  until  this  officious  Committee  thought  fit 
to  disturb  the  general  satisfaction.  But  what  is  the  true  history 
of  this  proceeding?  A  Committee  was  appointed  last  year  by  the 
House  of  Commons  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  high  price 
of  gold  bullion,  and  into  the  state  of  the  foreign  exchanges  and 
of  the  currency  of  the  country.  They  took  these  subjects  into 
their  consideration:  they  brought  to  that  consideration  talents  and 
information  such  as  have  rarely  been  collected  together  in  any 
one  Committee  of  this  House;  and  they  bestowed  upon  it  (that 
praise  no  man  denies  to  the  Committee)  unremitted  diligence  and 
labour.  The  result  of  their  investigations  they  submitted  to  the 
House,  according  to  its  injunction  and  to  their  duty.  And  be- 
cause that  result  was  to  some  persons  unexpected,  and  is  to  others 
unpalatable,  are  we  therefore  justified  in  turning  round  upon  the 
Committee  of  our  own  appointment,  and  rebuking  them  for  the 
execution  of  the  task  which  we  had  imposed  upon  them  ? — What 
would  we  have  had  them  do  ?  refuse  the  task  allotted  to  them  by 
the  House? — or  decline  to  render  an  account  of  the  inquiries 
which  we  had  ordered  them  to  institute  ? — Or  would  we  have  had 
them  fashion  their  Report,  in  spite  of  their  own  conviction,  to  the 
creed  or  the  convenience  of  any  persons  or  party,  and  recom- 
mend only  whatever  might  best  flatter  our  prejudices  and  justify 
our  inaction? 

If  such  were  our  wish,  why  was  the  Committee  named  ?  Why 
was  not  the  proposal  for  its  appointment  rejected,  or  at  least  op- 
posed? I  was  in  the  House  on  the  day  when  it  was  proposed; 
and,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  not  a  single  voice  was  raised  against  it. 
If  the  subject  did  not  require  investigation,  it  was  idle,  and  not 
only  idle,  but  mischievous,  to  set  the  investigation  on  foot.  If  it 
was  apprehended  that  the  possible  or  probable  result  might  be 
prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  country,  then  was  the  time  to 
stop.  It  would  then  have  been  perfectly  easy  to  do  so.  A  sin- 
gle word,  the  intimation  of  a  doubt  from  any  quarter  of  the 
House,  might,  at  that  moment,  have  checked  the  proceeding.  But 
to  institute  an  inquiry  upon  a  matter  of  great  difficulty,  with  a 
pre-determination  to  come  to  but  one  conclusion,  is  neither  very 
creditable  to  those  who  appoint,  nor  very  just  to  those  who  are 
appointed  the  conductors  of  it. 

Although  I  do  not  go  with  the  Committee  (as  I  shall  presently 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  145 

have  occasion  to  explain)  to  the  length  of  their  practical  conclu- 
sion; and  although  the  details  of  this  intricate  and  perplexing  sub- 
ject are  as  little  agreeable  to  my  taste,  or  habits,  as  to  those  of  any 
person  in  the  House; — although  I  would  as  gladly  as  any  body 
have  turned  aside  from  the  task  of  examining  the  reasonings  and 
deductions  of  the  report;  yet  I  cannot  in  justice  throw  upon  the 
members  of  the  Committee  the  blame  of  those  inconveniences 
which  are  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  subject  referred  to  their 
inquiry.  However  much  I  may  dislike  the  unpleasant  truths 
which  are  told  in  the  Report,  I  do  not  think  myself  warranted  to 
transfer  that  dislike  to  those  whose  duty  it  has  been  to  tell  them. 

The  Committee,  then,  I  say,  have  only  done  their  duty.  Nor 
can  we  avoid  the  performance  of  the  duty  which  now  devolves 
upon  ourselves.  Distasteful  as  the  matter  may  be,  it  is  before  us, 
and  we  must  dispose  of  it. 

I  do  not  share  in  the  apprehensions  of  those  persons  who  pre- 
dict danger  and  mischief  from  this  discussion.  I  have  seldom 
known  an  instance  in  which  more  good  than  evil  has  not  arisen 
out  of  parliamentary  discussion  of  subjects,  however  delicate, 
upon  which  the  public  mind  had  been  previously  agitated  and  di- 
vided. 

As  little  do  I  agree  with  those  who  think  that  the  discussion  must 
necessarily  be  barren  and  useless.  Even  if  it  should  not  termin- 
ate (as  probably  it  may  not)  in  the  adoption  of  the  practical 
remedy  suggested  by  the  Committee,  or  in  the  suggestion  of  any 
other  in  its  room,  I  do  not  think  that  the  time  and  the  trouble  of 
the  House  will  therefore  have  been  entirely  thrown  away.  The 
discussion  which  has  already  taken  place  out  of  doors,  renders 
some  decision  of  this  House  necessary.  In  the  course  of  that 
discussion,  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  whole  money  sys- 
tem have  been  disputed  and  denied; — all  that  had  long  been  con- 
sidered as  fixed  and  determinate  in  them  has  been  shaken,  or  at 
least  attempted  to  be  shaken: — a  mischief  more  serious  than  even 
that  which  the  Committee  has  proposed  to  cure;  and  one  to  which 
a  cure  may  be  (and  ought  to  be)  administered  by  the  Resolutions 
of  this  House,  whatever  may  become  of  the  practical  recommen- 
dation of  the  Committee. 

Nor  is  it  only  out  of  doors  that  these  fundamental  principles 
have  been  questioned.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite 
to  me  (Mr.  Vansittart) — a  gentleman  for  whom  personally  I  en- 
tertain the  sincerest  respect  as  well  as  regard,  and  whose  just  rep- 
utation for  knowledge  upon  these  subjects  entitles  his  opinions 
upon  them  to  very  peculiar  attention — has  countenanced,  by  him- 
self adopting  it,  a  mode  of  reasoning  which  has  been  much  cm- 
ployed  in  the  written  controversy,  but  which  I  had  hoped  no  man 
in  this  House,  and  least  of  all  any  man  of  such  extensive  infor- 
21  o 


146  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

mation  and  such  high  authority,  would  have  been  found  to  endure, 
much  less  to  sanction.  He  has  rejected  altogether  the  established 
doctrine  of  a  fixed  standard  of  the  currency  of  the  realm;  and, 
instead  of  trying  the  disputed  value  of  our  present  circulating 
medium,  by  reference  to  that  which  has  always  hitherto  been 
taken  as  the  settled  measure  in  all  such  inquiries,  he  has  thought 
himself  at  liberty  to  bend  and  accommodate  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  money  system  to  the  state  of  our  currency, 
such  as  he  happens  to  find  it. 

Others  who  have  supported  the  right  honourable  gentleman's 
propositions  have  carried  this  license  still  farther.  They  have 
not  only  considered  the  principles  of  all  our  coinage  laws,  so  far 
as  they  relate  to  the  value  of  our  money,  as  inapplicable  to  the 
present  state  of  our  currency,  but  as  altogether  obsolete.  They 
appear  to  look  upon  the  law  by  which  Bank  paper  is  made  incon- 
vertible into  cash,  not  as  an  occasional  law  growing  out  of  a  tem- 
porary necessity,  and  determinable  with  that  necessity,  but  as  a 
wise  and  provident  contrivance  to  substitute  absolutely  and  indefi- 
nitely for  the  ancient  coin  of  the  kingdom,  a  currency  better 
adapted  in  their  opinion  to  the  present  state  of  the  world  and  to 
the  peculiar  exigencies  of  this  country.  The  suspension  of  the 
cash  payments  of  the  Bank  had  hitherto  always  been  treated  as  a 
necessary  evil;  as  an  expedient  upon  which  we  were  forced  with 
reluctance,  and  of  which  we  had  the  decency  at  least  to  pretend 
to  desire  and  to  anticipate  the  discontinuance:  but,  in  the  view 
of  the  subject  which  has  been  taken  by  these  supporters  of  the 
right  honourable  gentleman's  propositions,  the  Bank  restriction  is 
now  become  the  staple  resource  in  our  pecuniary  system;  it  is  to 
be  avowed  as  the  standing  policy  of  the  State;  and  to  be  prized 
as  an  invention  long  desired,  and  now  happily  found,  for  supply- 
ing boundless  exertion  with  inexhaustible  and  unexhausting 
finance. 

The  decision  of  the  House,  therefore,  important  as  it  would 
undoubtedly  be,  if  it  should  either  confirm  the  recommendation 
of  the  Bullion  Committee,  or  substitute  in  its  stead  some  other 
practical  measure  for  the  termination  of  the  Bank  restriction, 
will  yet  be  not  less  (I  had  almost  said  will  be  more)  important, 
if,  even  rejecting  that  recommendation,  and  confirming  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  restriction,  it  shall  nevertheless  at  the  same  time 
recognize  the  general  principles  which  that  Committee  have  laid 
down;  and  shall  separate  and  distinguish  the  measure  of  the  re- 
striction itself,  from  the  false  and  dangerous  arguments  by  which 
it  has  been  not  only  justified  as  an  expedient,  but  recommended 
as  a  system. 

To  record  principles  which  are  true,  and  which  have  been 
called  in  question,  is  not  of  itself  an  idle  nor  an  unparliamentary 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  147 

practice:  and  it  is  no  paradox  to  say,  that  to  record  principles  is 
never  so  much  a  matter  of  duty  as  when  some  over-ruling  neces- 
sity obliges  us  to  a  practical  departure  from  them.  It  then  be- 
comes incumbent  upon  us  to  prove  that  we  are  acting  indeed 
from  necessity,  not  from  indifference  or  change  of  system;  to 
take  care  that  our  deviation  shall  not  be  made  a  precedent  to  be 
resorted  to  hereafter  on  occasions  of  less  urgency;  to  provide 
that  the  exception  shall  not  be  erected  into  the  rule. 

This  then  is  the  answer  which  I  give  to  those  who  represent 
the  concluding  Resolution  of  the  honourable  and  learned  Chair- 
man  (Mr.  Horner)  of  the  Bullion  Committee,  as  the  only  essen- 
tial object  of  our  deliberations;  and  who  would  persuade  us  that, 
if  we  are  not  prepared  to  decide  with  him  upon  the  opening  of 
the  Bank,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  all  his  preliminary  Reso- 
lutions but  to  get  rid  of  them  as  quickly  as  possible.  I,  for  one, 
am  not  prepared  to  vote  with  him  for  the  opening  of  the  Bank;  I 
shall  vote  against  the  honourable  gentleman's  concluding  Resolu- 
tion: but  I  think  that,  according  to  all  sound  and  practical  views, 
the  question,  important  as  it  is,  whether  the  Bank  shall  be  opened 
or  shut,  sinks  into  insignificance  in  comparison  with  that  which 
has  been  raised  with  respect  to  the  principles  upon  which  the 
whole  money  system,  and  consequently  the  whole  credit  of  the 
country,  essentially  depends. 

Give  me  the  affirmation  by  Parliament  of  the  first  ten  Resolu- 
tions of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman — those  Resolutions 
which  state  (and  state  correctly)  the  principles  of  that  money 
system,  from  which  we  have  been  compelled  to  depart,  and  the 
effects  of  our  departure  from  them — and  I  would  not  unwillingly 
consent  to  a  compromise  with  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
opposite  to  me  (Mr.  Vansittart.)  I  would,  on  that  condition, 
adopt  the  two  last  of  his  propositions;  adopt  them  in  substance 
at  least, — so  far  as  to  agree  with  him  that  this  is  not  the  moment 
at  which  our  cash  payments  can  be  resumed,  or  at  which  the  pre- 
cise period  of  their  resumption  can  be  determined.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  ought  surely  to  be  satisfied  with  this  com- 
promise. His  conclusion  would,  to  my  mind,  even  flow  more 
logically  from  the  premises  laid  down  in  the  Resolutions  of  the 
honourable  and  learned  gentleman.  I  certainly  cannot  subscribe 
to  it  as  flowing  from  his  own.  I  am  ready  to  do  as  he  would  have 
me  do,  if  he  will  allow  me  to  record  the  reasons  of  my  concur- 
rence: hut.  it.  is  a  concurrence  which,  I  feel,  requires  explanation 
and  apology;  it  is  a  concurrence  which,  if  I  do  not  altogether 
withhold  it,  I  certainly  cannot  give,  except  on  the  condition  that 
I  shall  be  at  liberty  to  prove  at  the  same  time,  that  it  is  given 
not  in  consequence  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  reasons, 
but  in  spite  of  them.     That  our  currency  is  in  such  a  state  that 


14S  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

the  Bank  cannot  safely  open,  I  agree;  but  it  is  hard  to  insist  that 
I  should  find  every  thing  right  in  that  state  of  things  which 
forces  me  to  come  to  such  an  agreement. 

My  right  honourable  friend,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
(Mr.  Perceval,)  has,  with  great  dexterity,  as  well  as  eloquence, 
endeavoured  to  divert  our  attention  from  the  specific  object  of  this 
night's  deliberation,  by  directing  it  to  those  circumstances  in  the 
present  situation  of  affairs  at  home  and  abroad,  upon  which  there 
is  scarcely  any  difference  of  feeling  or  opinion.  The  inordinate 
ambition  and  gigantic  power  of  the  enemy,  the  warfare  directed 
by  him  against  our  trade  and  our  manufactures;  these  are  topics 
upon  which  my  right  honourable  friend  has  expatiated  with  a 
force  of  statement,  and  a  warmth  of  language,  which  do  full  jus- 
tice to  his  argument;  and  has  appealed  to  us,  whether  we  will 
wantonly  aggravate  difficulties  already  so  complicated  and  so 
overwhelming?  He  has  availed  himself  with  equal  skill  of 
another  argument,  which  he  well  knows  would  operate  upon  my 
mind  with  no  less  force  than  upon  his  own,  and  which,  if  I  could 
indeed  be  convinced  that  it  was  legitimately  applied  to  the  ques 
tion  in  the  way  in  which  he  applies  it,  would  lead  me,  I  will  not 
say  to  concur  in  his  conclusions,  but  at  least  to  hesitate  in  reject- 
ing them.  He  refers  to  the  recent  triumphs  of  our  arms;  he 
places  before  our  eyes  the  prospect  of  successes  still  more  splen- 
did; he  describes  the  safety  of  this  country  as  involved  in  the 
war  in  the  Peninsula;  and  he  asks  us,  how  that  war  is  to  be  main- 
tained ?  how  we  are  to  find  the  means  of  keeping  on  foot  that 
army  which  has  already  performed  such  brilliant  achievements, 
and  of  seconding  the  exertions  of  the  Commander  who  has  car- 
ried the  British  name  to  the  highest  point  of  military  glory? 
Shall  such  a  contest — a  contest  for  all  that  is  interesting  to  this 
country  and  to  Europe,  be  abandoned?  Shall  Lord  Wellington 
be  checked  in  his  career?  Shall  Portugal  have  been  liberated 
only  to  be  again  given  up  to  slavery  ?  Shall  the  hopes  of  Spain 
have  been  revived  only  to  be  finally  dashed  and  extinguished? 
God  forbid!  My  right  honourable  friend  well  knows  that,  in 
calling  upon  me  duly  to  weigh  these  considerations,  he  interposes 
the  surest  impediment  to  any  rash  decision  on  my  part,  by  which 
interests  so  dear  to  this  country  could  by  possibility  be  brought 
into  hazard.  He  knows  that  I  must  put  a  violence  upon  myself 
before  I  can  coolly  calculate  the  real  bearing  of  topics  which 
come  home  so  forcibly  to  my  feelings;  before  I  can  dissipate  the 
'  illusion  which  they  throw  round  the  matter  in  debate,  and  ex- 
amine dispassionately  the  degree  in  which  they  really  apply  to  it. 

But  I  will  not  pay  my  right  honourable  friend  so  ill  a  compli- 
ment as  to  suppose  that  he  is  not  himself  perfectly  aware,  that  in 
thus  shaping  his  argument,  he  has,  in   fact,  either  assumed  or 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  149 

omitted  the  question  that  is  in  dispute. — The  question  is  not — 
whether  we  shall  continue  the  war  in  the  Peninsula  with  all  our 
heart,  and  with  all  our  might? — Who  doubts, — who  dissuades 
that  determination?  That  point  might  have  been  assumed  with- 
out hazard  of  contradiction.  But  my  right  honourable  friend 
argues  that  point  as  if  it  were  disputed: — and  assumes  without 
argument  that  which  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  prove; — namely, 
that  to  the  continuance  of  the  war,  and  of  our  successes  in  the 
Peninsula,  it  is  essential  that  the  present  system  of  our  currency 
should  remain  unchanged.  Just  as  fairly  might  I  assume  without 
argument,  that  a  change  in  our  currency  is  necessary  to  this 
same  purpose  of  continuing  the  war; — and  then  retort  upon  my 
right  honourable  friend  his  own  expostulations  against  fettering 
the  energies,  and  cramping  the  exertions  of  the  country.  In 
either  case  the  point  which  alone  is  in  dispute,  remains  to  be 
decided. 

Why  is  the  continuance  of  the  present  system  of  currency  es- 
sential to  the  continuance  of  the  war?  Is  it  because  that  currency 
is  in  a  sound  state? — or  that,  being  depreciated,  a  depreciated 
currency  is  the  best  instrument  of  foreign  exertion  ?  Which  of 
these  two  propositions  is  it  that  my  right  honourable  friend  in- 
tends to  maintain  ?  I  ask  this  question  with  the  more  earnestness, 
because  throughout  the  whole  of  his  speech,  long,  able,  and  elo- 
quent as  it  was,  I  watched  in  vain  for  any  sentence  which  dis- 
tinctly expressed  an  opinion  upon  either  of  them.  I  did  not  hear 
him  affirm  that  the  currency  was  sound;  I  did  not  hear  him  ad- 
mit that  it  was  depreciated;  he  always  stopped  short  of  this  affir- 
mation and  of  this  admission;  and  if  any  distinct  proposition 
could  be  collected  and  embodied  out  of  those  topics  with  which 
he  endeavoured  to  cover  these  simple  questions,  it  seemed  at 
most  to  amount  to  nothing  more  than  this — that  it  was  best  to  go 
on  as  we  are,  avoiding  all  inquiry  on  the  subject. 

To  that  proposition  (if  that  be  the  proposition  which  my  right 
honourable  friend  means  to  maintain) — I  answer,  that  it  comes 
too  late.  The  period  for  acting  upon  that  policy  passed  by  when 
the  House  consented  to  the  appointment  of  the  Bullion  Com- 
mittee. 

To  the  question,  how  shall  our  military  exertions  be  best  sup- 
ported? I  reply — By  supporting  the  credit  of  the  country;  by 
ascertaining  the  soundness  of  our  currency,  if  it  be  sound;  by 
ascertaining  the  degree  of  its  defect,  if  it  be  defective;  with  a 
view  in  the  one  case  to  apply  a  remedy  so  far  as  a  remedy  may 
be  applicable;  and  in  the  other  to  fix  and  settle  the  public  opinion, 
which  of  itself  is  no  small  ingredient  in  the  financial  resources 
of  a  state. 

I  have  no  right,  and  certainly  full  as  little  desire,  to  impute  to 

o* 


150  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

my  right  honourable  friend  that  he  is  avowedly  the  advocate  of 
a  depreciated  currency:  but  this  debate  would  end  most  unsatis- 
factorily for  the  public,  as  well  as  for  the  House,  if  it  were  to 
end  without  its  being  clearly  understood  on  what  precise  grounds 
my  right  honourable  friend  thinks  the  present  state  of  our  cur- 
rency such  as  it  ought  to  be. — First,  whether  he  thinks  it  is  not 
depreciated;  secondly,  whether,  admitting  it  to  be  depreciated, 
he  considers  the  depreciation  as  incurable,  and  therefore  only 
would  take  no  step  to  cure  it;  or,  thirdly,  whether  he  concurs 
with  those  who  see  in  that  depreciation  a  fertile  source  of  wealth 
and  blessings  to  the  country: — these,  after  all,  are  the  points  in 
dispute, — and  these  points  my  right  honourable  friend  appears  to 
me  to  have  studiously  avoided. 

Even  in  that  part  of  his  speech  in  which  he  approached  the 
nearest  to  the  question  of  depreciation,  my  right  honourable 
friend  so  managed  the  course  of  his  argument  as  to  make  it  im- 
possible that  he  should  arrive  at  any  definite  conclusion. — With  a 
semblance  of  candour  which  seemed  as  if  he  had  adopted  an  in- 
verted mode  of  reasoning  as  the  best  calculated  in  this  particular 
instance  for  discovering  the  truth,  he  begins  with  examining  the 
question  of  Excess — "  Prove,"  says  my  right  honourable  friend, 
"  that  there  exists  an  excess,  and  then  I  will  be  ready  to  go  with 
you  into  an  inquiry  whether  that  excess  has  produced  deprecia- 
tion."— Now,  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  remind  my  right  honour- 
able friend,  that  to  reason  from  effect  to  cause  has  always  been 
the  course  of  sound  philosophy. — The  Committee  affirms  the  ex- 
istence of  depreciation;  and,  as  that  depreciation  cannot  arise 
from  any  doubt  of  the  solidity  of  the  Bank — of  its  ability  to 
meet  its  engagements,  they  attribute  it  (unanswerably,  as  appears 
to  me)  to  excessive  issue.  "  Prove  this  excessive  issue,"  says  my 
right  honourable  friend.  But  how  is  positive  excess  (if  I  may 
use  that  expression)  susceptible  of  proof?  How  is  it  possible  to 
prove,  that  too  many  bank  notes  are  issued,  so  long  as  there  is  a 
single  applicant  willing  to  receive  them  ?  The  comparison  of  the 
amount  of  bank  notes  in  circulation  with  that  of  the  aggregate 
pecuniary  transactions  of  the  community,  would  of  itself  afford 
no  certain  criterion  of  the  sufficiency  or  excess  of  that  circulation 
— even  if  it  were  possible  to  state  that  comparison  with  any  thing 
like  accuracy.  But  who  shall  pretend  to  state  the  actual  aggre- 
gate amount  of  all  the  pecuniary  transactions  of  the  community? 
So  far  as  a  pretty  general  increase  of  prices  is  any  symptom  of 
excessive  currency,  that  symptom  undeniably  exists.  But  I  ac- 
knowledge it  to  be  no  more  than  a  symptom.  I  admit  further, 
that  the  mere  amount  of  bank  paper  in  circulation,  however  large 
it  may  be,  does  not  of  itself  necessarily  constitute  excess.  I  ad- 
mit that  there  is  not  excess,  unless  there  be  depreciation.  Whether 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  151 

depreciation  does  exist  or  not,  is,  therefore,  the  question  which 
must  necessarily  have  the  precedency  in  our  examination. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite  to  me  (Mr.  Van- 
sittart,)  when  he  opened  his  counter-propositions  to  the  House, 
put  to  my  right  honourable  friend  near  me  (Mr.  Huskisson,)  the 
question — "What  do  you  mean  by  depreciation?"  He  put  this 
question,  rather  irregularly,  in  the  middle  of  his  own  speech;  and 
seemed  to  think  it  matter  of  triumph  that  he  did  not  receive,  at 
that  moment,  an  answer  in  a  single  word.  An  answer  he  has, 
however,  since  received,  and  I  should  imagine  (in  one  sense  at 
least)  to  his  complete  satisfaction.  "  By  depreciation,  do  you 
mean  discredit?"  said  the  right  honourable  gentleman.  If  by 
"discredit,"  the  right  honourable  gentleman  means  a  doubt  of 
the  solidity  of  the  Bank,  a  doubt  whether  the  outstanding  de- 
mands upon  the  Bank  do  not  exceed  the  amount  of  their  assets; 
unquestionably  no  such  doubt  exists,  and  consequently  "discredit" 
enters  for  nothing  into  the  "  depreciation"  of  Bank  of  England 
paper. 

But  when  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  obtained  this 
concession,  it  appears  to  me  that  he  has  obtained  nothing  at  all 
towards  overthrowing  the  arguments  of  his  antagonist,  or  towards 
establishing  his  own.  For  the  same  concession  would  be  equally 
true  with  respect  to  a  paper  currency  which  should  represent  to 
its  full  amount  the  whole  moveable  and  immoveable  property  of 
the  country.  There  would  be  assets  in  existence  adequate  to  the 
redemption  of  that  paper.  Of  a  paper  issued  to  such  an  amount, 
although  resting  on  such  unquestionable  security,  it  is  probable 
that  my  right  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Perceval,)  who  spoke  last, 
would  not  dispute  the  excess;  yet  how  could  that  excess  be  indi- 
cated except  by  depreciation?  That  depreciation,  in  the  case 
which  I  have  supposed,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  (Mr. 
Vansittart)  could  not  deny;  but  he  must  acknowledge  that  it 
would  arise  from  other  causes  than  discredit.  The  argument, 
therefore,  or  rather  the  suggestion  (for  it  has  not  been  distinctly 
argued,)  that  there  can  be  no  depreciation  unless  arising  from,  or 
accompanied  with,  discredit;  and  the  inference  which  is  covertly 
insinuated,  that  they  who  affirm  bank  notes  to  be  depreciated,  in- 
tend to  attack  the  credit  of  the  Bank,  entirely  fall  to  the  ground. 

The  alleged  depreciation  of  bank  notes  consists  in  this — that, 
whereas  they  did  in  fact  represent  heretofore  the  real  as  well  as 
the  nominal  value  of  the  coin  which  constitutes  our  lawful  money, 
they  now  represent  its  nominal  value  only.  This  is  the  answer 
to  the  question  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman. 

In  return,  my  honourable  friend  proposed  a  question  to  the 
right  honourable  gentleman,  to  which  I  think  he  has  not  yet 
given  any  answer.     "  If  you  affirm,"  said  my  honourable  friend, 


152  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

"  what  I  deny,  the  equivalency  of  bank  notes  to  money,  tell  me, 
what  is  the  common  standard  by  which  you  measure  that  equiva- 
lency ? "  This  question  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  al- 
together evaded.  He  has  given  no  answer  to  it. — Does  he  mean 
to  acquiesce  in  those  which  have  been  given  for  him  by  others 
who  have  taken  the  same  side  with  him  in  this  debate,  or  by 
some  fanciful  writers,  who,  under  the  guise  and  garb  of  practical 
men,  have  indulged  themselves  in  the  wildest  theories  and  imag- 
inations, upon  this  subject  of  the  standard  ? 

"The  coin,"  says  a  noble  Lord,  "  is,  or  was,  the  standard  of 
the  paper."  But  this  description  does  not  advance  us  a  single 
step?  for  the  question  still  remains,  "What  is  the  standard  of  the 
coin  ?  What  is  that  common  measure  to  which  coin  and  paper 
may  be  equally  referred  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their 
agreement  or  disagreement,  with  it,  and  with  each  other?" 

The  noble  Lord  has  indeed  devised  a  singular  definition  of  this 
measure,  in  which  I  should  be  exceedingly  curious  to  know 
whether  the  right  honourable  gentleman  concurs.  He  defines  it 
to  be  "  a  sense  of  value  in  reference  to  currency  as  compared 
with  commodities." — I  hope  I  do  not  misquote  him.  To  the 
best  of  my  recollection,  these  were  the  very  words — "  A  sense 
of  value!"  But  whose  sense?  with  whom  is  it  to  originate? 
and  how  is  it  to  be  communicated  to  others  ?  Who  is  to  promul- 
gate, who  is  to  acknowledge,  or  who  is  to  enforce  it?  How  is  it 
to  be  defined  ?  and  how  is  it  to  be  regulated  ?  What  ingenuity 
shall  calculate,  or  what  authority  control  its  fluctuation  ? — Is  the 
"  sense"  of  to-day  the  same  as  that  of  yesterday,  and  will  it  be 
unchanged  to-morrow?  It  does  fill  me  with  astonishment  that 
any  man,  of  an  accurate  and  reasoning  mind,  should  not  perceive 
that  this  wild  and  dangerous  principle,  (if  principle  it  can  be 
called)  would  throw  loose  all  the  transactions  of  private  life,  all 
contracts  and  pecuniary  bargains,  by  leaving  them  to  be  measured 
from  day  to  day,  and  from  hour  to  hour,  by  no  other  rule  than 
that  of  the  fancies  and  interests  of  each  individual  conflicting 
with  the  fancies  and  interests  of  his  neighbour. 

A  "  sense  of  value!"  It  is  not  many  days  since  an  experiment 
was  tried  upon  this  "  sense,"  which  may  serve  to  illustrate  the 
probable  course  of  its  operations,  if  left  exclusively  to  its  own 
guidance.  The  artizan  who  on  the  Thursday  night  had  exchanged 
a  one-pound  note  with  his  neighbour  for  four  dollars,  found  in 
the  morning  that  he  had,  insensibly  to  himself,  become  two  shil- 
lings richer  by  the  exchange.  I  am  not,  here,  about  to  inquire 
whether  the  Bank  were  right  or  wrong  in  raising  the  denomina- 
tion of  the  dollar;  I  refer  to  this  operation  merely  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  argument:  and  I  ask,  Where  would  be  the  end  of 
such  operations  if  every  individual's  "  sense  of  value  "  were  to 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  153 

be  his  only  guide  in  his  dealings  with  his  neighbours?  In  this  in- 
stance the  authority  of  the  Bank  sanctioned  and  limited  the  de- 
gree of  the  rise  in  the  current  value  of  the  dollar,  or,  to  put  the 
same  thing  in  other  words,  the  degree  of  the  loss  which  the  bank 
note  should  sustain  in  exchange  against  the  dollar.  But,  is  it  to 
be  imagined  that, — if  they  had  merely  sanctioned  the  principle 
of  such  alteration,  without  limiting  the  degree, — two  shillings  in 
the  pound,  or  ten  per  cent,  is  the  precise  amount  of  the  rise  on 
the  one  hand,  or  of  the  depreciation  on  the  other,  which  all  the 
holders  of  bank  notes,  and  of  dollars  respectively,  would  have 
agreed  to  fix  by  a  common  "  sense  of  value"  ?  Is  not  such  a  sup- 
position utterly  absurd  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that  something  wholly 
extrinsic  to  that  capricious  "  sense,"  is  necessary  to  regulate  the 
ordinary  dealings  between  man  and  man;  and  that  the  course  of 
those  dealings  could  not  be  left  without  a  guide,  but  at  the  hazard, 
or  the  certainty  rather,  of  immediate  and  inextricable  confusion  ? 

If,  however,  we  were  persuaded  to  leave  the  proportions  and 
prices  of  all  commodities  to  be  adjusted  by  this  "  sense  of  value," 
we  ought  at  least  to  be  consistent  in  our  theory  and  practice. 
This  "sense  of  value,"  which  is  now  proposed  to  be  erected  into 
an  universal  measure,  has  been  occasionally  adopted  as  such  by 
individuals.  There  is  a  man  now  expecting  the  judgment  of  the 
law,  whose  "sense  of  value"  led  him  to  exchange  for  guineas  a 
proportion  of  Bank  of  England  paper,  which  he  considered  as  no 
more  than  an  equivalent.  Of  what  crime  was  this  man  guilty, 
but  of  obeying  that  natural  and  instinctive  impulse  which  the 
noble  Lord  is  now  prepared  to  set  up  as  a  substitute  for  the 
standard  of  our  money?  If  there  be  nothing  more  fixed  and 
stable  than  individual  feeling,  to  which  the  estimate  of  values 
can  be  referred,  let  us  at  least  refrain  from  punishing  the  exercise 
of  that  individual  feeling.  If  the  law  shall  decline  to  fix  a  stand- 
ard measure,  it  cannot  reserve  the  right  of  visiting  erroneous 
measurement  as  a  crime.  This  would  be  an  injustice  like  that  of 
the  eastern  monarch  who  called  upon  the  soothsayers  to  interpret 
his  dream,  but  refused  to  tell  them  the  dream  of  which  he  re- 
quired the  interpretation. 

No  dream,  it  must  be  owned,  could  be  more  extravagant  than 
the  visions  of  those  practical  men  who  have  undertaken  to  refine 
away  tin:  standard  of  the  currency  of  the  realm  into  a  pure  ab- 
straction. There  is  indeed  something  perfectly  ludicrous  in  the 
inconsistency  and  injustice  with  which  they  impute  a  love  of  ab- 
straction to  their  opponents,  while  they  are  themselves  indulging 
in  the  most  wanton  departures  from  substance  and  reality.  "Be- 
ware of  abstract  theories,"  say  they  to  the  Bullion  Committee, 
when  tiny  find  fact  and  law  laid  down  as  the  foundation  of  its 
Report.  "  Beware  of  abstract  theories,"  say  they  to  the  honour- 
22 


154  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

able  and  learned  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  when  they  find,  in 
his  first  seven  Resolutions,  nothing  like  theory  or  imagination; 
but  a  clear,  concise,  a  dry  and  faithful,  recapitulation  of  those  rules 
which  the  statutes  of  the  country  have  established  for  the  weight 
and  fineness  of  its  coin.  Nor  has  the  speech  with  which  that 
honourable  and  learned  gentleman  introduced  and  enforced  his 
Resolutions — a  speech  which,  remarkable  as  it  was  for  eloquence 
and  ability  of  every  kind,  was  by  nothing  so  distinguished  as  by 
its  perpetual  appeal  to  acknowledged  principles  and  established 
law, — even  that  speech  has  not  rescued  the  honourable  and  learn- 
ed gentleman  from  the  imputations  of  flightiness  and  romance. 
The  same  caution,  to  "  beware  of  abstract  theories,"  is  addressed 
to  my  honourable  friend  near  me,  whose  intelligence,  whose  ac- 
curacy, and  whose  official  knowledge,  digested  and  assimilated  by 
a  powerful  and  really  practical  understanding,  make  him  perhaps, 
of  all  men,  the  least  proper  object  for  such  an  admonition.  And 
this  admonition  comes  from  whom?  from  the  inventers  and 
champions  of  "abstract  currency;"  from  those  who  after  ex- 
hausting, in  vain,  every  attempt  to  find  an  earthly  substitute  for 
the  legal  and  ancient  standard  of  our  money,  have  divested  the 
pound  sterling  of  all  the  properties  of  matter,  and  pursued  it, 
under  the  name  of  the  "  ideal  unit"  into  the  regions  of  nonen- 
tity and  nonsense! 

When  the  ingenious  sophistry  of  Dr.  Berkeley,  to  prove  the 
non-existence  of  matter,  was  quoted  to  Dr.  Johnson  as  a  fallacy 
not  easy  to  be  refuted,  Dr.  Johnson  stamped  his  foot  with  force 
against  a  stone,  and  exclaimed,  "  I  refute  it  thus."  Unluckily,  I 
know  no  process  of  reasoning  that  can  reduce  one  of  these  prac- 
tical men  to  the  necessity  of  admitting,  that  a  pound  sterling  is 
not  a  creature  of  the  imagination:  one  cannot  appeal  even  to  their 
senses,  because  that  sense  of  theirs,  which  I  suppose  is  the  most 
conversant  with  this  subject,  the  "  sense  value,"  is  enlisted  on  the 
other  side.  But  one  may  appeal  from  their  theories  to  ancient 
records,  to  positive  institution,  and  to  existing  law.  On  these 
authorities,  I  contend  that  a  certain  specified  weight  of  gold,  or 
silver,  of  a  certain  fineness,  is  the  only  definition  of  a  pound  ster- 
ling which  an  Englishman,  desirous  of  conforming  to  the  laws 
of  his  country,  is  bound  to  regard  or  to  understand. 

Here  then  it  is  that  I  should  pause  for  the  answer  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  opposite  to  me  to  the  question  of  my  hon- 
ourable friend. — Does  he  admit  or  deny  this  definition  of  stand- 
ard ?  does  he  admit  or  deny  the  existence  of  a  standard  at  this 
moment  conformable  to  Ibis  definition  ?  If  he  admits  it,  then  it 
is  possible  not  only  to  answer  his  question  with  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  "  depreciation,"  but  also  to  demonstrate 
that  a  depreciation,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  word  is  used,  does 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  155 

exist.  Grant  but  the  lawful  standard  as  the  instrument  of  men- 
suration, and  nothing  is  more  easy  than  to  assign  the  exact  pro- 
portion in  which  coin  and  bank  notes  differ  in  value  from  each 
other.  But  while  the  right  honourable  gentleman  denies  the  ex- 
istence of  any  such  instrument,  bow  can  he  reasonably  require 
that  the  accuracy  of  such  a  measurement  should  be  proved  to  his 
satisfaction  ? 

A  pound  sterling  is  either  f|  of  a  pound  of  standard  silver;  or, 
ff  of  a  guinea  weighing  not  less  than  5dwts-  and  S"ts-  This  is  the 
simple  and  the  only  definition  which  the  practice  of  our  ances- 
tors recognizes,  and  the  law  of  the  country  allows.  Does  a  one- 
pound  note  represent  this  portion  of  the  precious  metals,  or  does 
it  not?  If  it  does,  the  legal  coin  of  the  country,  and  the  notes  of 
the  Bank,  are  equivalent.  If  not,  either  the  law  is  mis-stated,  or 
the  depreciation  is  proved. 

"Oh!  but,"  says  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  " the  bank 
note  represents  the  coin  itself,  quatenus  coin;  and  has  no  refer- 
ence or  relation  to  the  quantity  of  gold  or  silver  which  that  coin 
contains."  But  does  not  the  right  honourable  gentleman  see  that 
it  is  impossible  for  him  to  avail  himself  of  the  law  in  one  in- 
stance and  to  deny  its  operation  in  the  other? — The  King's 
proclamation  confirmed  by  Act  of  Parliament  has  fixed  the  de- 
nomination of  the  coin;  which  denomination  it  is  admitted  on 
all  hands,  the  bank  note  continues  to  represent:  but  the  same 
Act  of  Parliament  has  fixed  the  weight  of  the  coin  as  the  sole 
and  indispensable  test  of  the  value  which  that  denomination  im- 
plies. The  law  (as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  well  knows) 
watches  with  such  scrupulous  anxiety  over  the  weight  of  the 
guinea,  as  to  consider  the  loss  of  a  single  grain  as  sufficient  to  de- 
stroy its  character  as  a  legal  coin.  When  the  law  evinces  this 
anxiety  about  weight,  is  it  not  a  little  too  much  to  assume  in  ar- 
gument that  its  only  care  is  denomination? 

lint  what  is  the  proposition  for  the  sake  of  which  this  assump- 
tion is  hazarded?  Not  simply  that  bank  notes  are  a  convenient 
symbol  of  coin,  but  thai  tiny  are  actually  equivalent  to  it.  In 
proof  of  this  equivalency  it.  is  contended  that  the  law  has  bound 
them  together. 

First,  this  argument  would  prove  too  much:  it  would  undoubt- 
edly gel  rid  <>l  :d I  the  embarrassing  considerations  of  standard, 
of  weight,  and  of  intrinsic,  value;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  those 
who  maintain  il  would  be  involved  in  absurdities,  which  even 
the  ingenuity  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  could  not  recon- 
cile. They  would  have  to  maintain,  for  instance,  that  in  the 
year  1695,  when,  previous  to  the  resolution  taken  to  reform  the 
silver  coinage,  arguments  something  like  those  which  arc  now 
used  on  the   right  honourable   gentleman's  side  of  the  question, 


156  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

prevailed  upon  the  Legislature  to  try  the  experiment  of  a  statute 
by  which  it  was  made  penal  to  receive  or  tender  the  undipped 
coin  at  any  higher  price  than  the  clipped  coin — they  would  have 
to  maintain,  I  say,  that  from  the  passing  of  that  act,  the  clipped 
and  undipped  coin  of  the  country  became  precisely  equivalent: 
in  other  words,  that  an  ounce  of  silver  in  the  one  became,  by  the 
operation  of  the  statute,  equal  to  an  ounce  and  a  quarter  of  the 
same  silver  in  the  other.  Unquestionably  this  cannot  be  what 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  is  prepared  to  maintain  as  true; 
though  I  must  admit,  on  the  other  hand,  that  a  subject  of  this 
country  might  at  that  time  have  been  punished  for  acting  as  if 
he  thought  it  false.  But  is  the  relation  which  was  thus  produced 
by  law  between  two  things,  obviously  of  different  values,  equiva- 
lency ?  Or  is  it  to  be  imagined,  that  so  forced  and  unnatural  a 
state  of  things,  call  it  by  what  name  you  will,  could  be  maintain- 
ed by  any  law,  that  any  law  could  continue  long  in  force  whose 
purpose  it  was  to  maintain  it?  The  consequence  of  this  state  of 
things  in  1695,  was  the  disappearance,  that  is  to  say,  the  hoard- 
ing, the  melting,  or  the  exportation  of  the  perfect  coin:  the 
further  consequence  was,  that,  after  a  short  trial  of  the  compul- 
sory law,  Parliament  found  itself  obliged  to  go  to  the  root  of  the 
evil,  and  to  reform  the  depreciated  part  of  the  currency. 

But,  moreover,  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  assertion  of 
the  equivalency  of  coin  and  bank  notes,  is  in  direct  contradiction 
with  admissions  of  his  own.  In  the  course  of  this  debate  he  has 
admitted  (though  others  have  denied)  that  in  the  year  1804  the 
paper  of  the  Bank  of  Ireland  was  depreciated.  I  might  here  ask 
him  in  what  sense  he  understands  the  word  depreciated,  when  he 
so  applies  it;  and  he  would  have  to  answer  me,  as  it  has  been  an- 
swered to  him,  that  the  Irish  bank  note  did  not  then  represent  the 
intrinsic  value  of  the  coin  with  which  it  was  interchangeable. 

This  is  the  most  important  admission  on  the  part  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman;  and  it  has  a  bearing  upon  the  present  ques- 
tion, of  which  one  would  almost  apprehend  he  could  not  have 
been  aware,  but  which  nevertheless  he  will  find  it  difficult  to  deny. 
The  premium,  as  I  understand,  in  1S04,  was  about  one  shilling  and 
sixpence  on  the  guinea.  At  that  period  Irish  Bank  paper,  as  in- 
terchangeable with  English,  was  at  a  discount  which  pretty  near- 
ly corresponded  with  its  depreciation  in  reference  to  the  coin. 
The  premium  now  openly  paid  in  Ireland  upon  guineas  is  from 
three  and  sixpence  to  four  shillings.  But  Irish  Bank  paper  is 
now  exchangeable  with  English  nearly  at  par.  Whence  is  it  that 
English  Bank  paper,  which  had  an  advantage  over  Irish  Bank 
paper  in  1804,  when  Irish  paper  was  depreciated  only  about  seven 
and  a  half  per  cent,  should  be  now  nearly  on  a  par  with  it,  when 
it  is  confessedly  depreciated  almost  twenty  per  cent.     If,  indeed, 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  157 

English  Bank  paper  has  suffered  a  depreciation  to  the  same 
amount,  this  phenomenon  is  perfectly  intelligible:  but  upon  the 
hypothesis  of  the  perfect  and  unchanged  equivalency  of  English 
Bank  paper  and  coin,  it  admits  of  no  solution. 

To  my  mind,  I  do  confess,  here  is  one  decisive  proof  of  depre- 
ciation. 

But,  is  not  the  case  of  the  dollar  (to  which  I  have  had  occasion 
to  refer  with  another  view  in  a  former  part  of  the  argument,)  it- 
self a  conclusive  proof,  not  only  of  the  existence  of  a  depreciation 
of  Bank  paper,  but  of  the  opinion  of  the  Bank,  and  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, that  such  depreciation  does  exist?  Why  was  the  bank 
note,  which  was  equivalent  to  four  dollars  on  one  day,  worth  two 
shillings  less  than  four  dollars  the  next?  Those  who  claim  to 
themselves  exclusively  the  title  of  practical  men,  take  a  subtle 
distinction,  and  say  that  it  is  not  the  bank  note  which  is  worth 
less,  but  the  dollar  which  is  worth  more:  and  they  treat  as  theo- 
rists and  visionaries  all  whose  faculties  do  not  enable  them  to  en- 
ter into  this  distinction.  But,  however  the  variation  arose,  why 
did  the  Government  and  the  Bank  think  it  necessary  to  sanction 
and  promulgate  it?  Why?  but  because  the  dollar,  being  a  coin 
circulating  in  this  country  by  sufferance  only,  a  currency  of  con- 
vention, would,  according  to  the  admission,  or  rather  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Bank,  under  the  authority  of  the  Privy  Council,  have 
been  driven  out  of  circulation,  that  is  to  say,  would  have  been 
hoarded,  or  melted,  or  exported,  if  it  had  not  been  allowed  to  pass 
at  the  marketable  value  of  the  silver  which  it  contains. 

With  this  example  before  their  eyes — with  this  admission  and 
declaration  still  recent  before  the  eyes  of  the  public,  there  are  yet 
some  persons  who  contend,  that  the  disappearance  of  our  legal 
coin — the  guinea — is  no  proof  of  the  depreciation  of  bank  notes, 
in  respect  to  that  coin;  but  is  entirely  owing  to  the  balance  of 
trade  and  of  payments,  and  to  the  wiles  of  our  inveterate  enemy. 
The  bank  note,  which,  confronted  with  the  dollar,  shrunk  from 
twenty  to  eighteen  shillings,  preserved,  as  they  affirm,  in  face  of 
the  guinea,  an  unaltered,  and  unalterable  equivalency.  And  what 
is  it,  according  to  their  theory,  that  occasions  this  peculiarity? 
The  law.  The  law,  which  does  what?  The  law,  which  makes  it 
criminal  (if  indeed  it  be  criminal)  to  exchange  the  guinea  for  more 
than  its  denominative  value  in  bank  notes;  and.  which  prohibits 
the  exportation  of  the  legal  coin  of  the  realm. 

Lei  us  see  what  is  the  mode  in  which  these  powerful  and  bene- 
ficial laws  are  now  actually  operating.  The  result  which  they 
were  intended  to  obtain  confessedly  was  to  keep  our  legal  coin  at 
home,  and  to  maintain  it  in  circulation.  The  result  actually  is, 
that  such  coin  has  vanished  from  domestic  circulation,  and  that  it  is 
exported  to  all   parts  of  the  world.     The  dollars  were  sent  into 

p 


158  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

circulation,  unprotected  by  any  law  which  should  prevent  their 
exportation  to  foreign  countries:  for  a  time  they  circulated  in 
abundance;  at  length  they  began  to  disappear.  By  what  process 
has  it  been  attempted,  and  successfully,  to  check  their  disappear- 
ance? By  the  same  process  which  it  so  wisely  contrived  to  pre- 
vent the  disappearance  of  guineas?  By  forbidding  more  to  be 
given  for  them  than  they  had  hitherto  been  exchanged  for  in  bank 
notes?  No,  but  by  a  precisely  contrary  process — by  allowing,  the 
dollars  to  pass  at,  or  above,  their  value.  The  consequence  is,  a 
continued  circulation  of  dollars  in  this  country,  in  spite  of  the  bal- 
ance of  trade  and  of  the  wiles  of  the  enemy. 

Here,  then,  are  two  metallic  currencies,  one  of  which  continues 
in  circulation,  while  the  other  vanishes  from  it.  The  distinctive 
differences  between  them  are:  First,  that  of  one  the  exportation 
is  permitted,  and  of  the  other  prohibited.  I  acknowledge  the 
perversity  of  human  nature,  and  its  proneness  to  do  what  is  for- 
bidden: but  I  cannot  think  that  principle  alone  sufficient  to  account 
for  the  exportation  of  the  coin,  which  it  is  illegal  to  export,  and 
for  the  continuance  in  circulation  of  that  which  might  be  exported 
without  offence.  Secondly,  the  one  is  exchangeable  for  its  full 
marketable  value  in  our  domestic  currency,  whereas  the  law  en- 
forces (or  is  supposed  to  enforce)  the  exchange  of  the  other  at  no 
more  than  its  denominative  rate.  The  bank  note  is  the  common 
measure  both  of  the  guinea  and  of  the  dollar,  of  the  exportable 
and  unexportable  coin:  the  guinea  it  is  allowed  by  law  to  measure 
only  according  to  its  denomination;  the  dollar  by  the  ordinance 
of  the  Bank,  it  is  allowed  to  measure  according  to  its  marketable 
value.  What  is  the  result?  The  coin,  which  is  by  law  unexport- 
able, flies  to  another  market,  while  the  exportable  remains  at 
home. 

But  let  it,  for  argument's  sake,  be  conceded  that  the  rise  of  the 
dollar  is  not  a  proof  of  depreciation  in  the  bank  note.  It  follows 
then,  that  if  the  bank  note,  which  would  heretofore  have  pur- 
chased four  dollars,  is  not  depreciated  in  respect  to  the  dollar,  be- 
cause it  is  now  obliged  to  call  in  two  shillings  to  its  aid  in  order 
to  make  the  same  purchase,  neither  would  the  bank  note,  which 
heretofore  purchased  a  guinea  with  the  aid  of  one  shilling  only, 
be  depreciated  in  respect  to  the  guinea,  if  it  should  now  be  al- 
lowed to  make  the  same  purchase  with  the  aid  of  four  or  five 
shillings.  I  think  I  may  defy  the  most  practical  of  men  to  quar- 
rel with  this  proposition. 

Well,  then,  if  this  be  so,  and  if  it  be  indeed  an  object  to  keep 
our  guineas  at  home,  why  is  not  the  operation,  which  has  been  so 
successful  with  respect  to  the  dollar,  applied  to  the  guinea?  What 
difference  is  there  in  the  principle?  and  what  difference  in  the 
practical  policy  of  the  transaction,  but  such  as  would  preponderate 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  159 

in  favour  of  the  guinea?  If  it  be  answered,  "  that  the  guinea  is  a 
legal  coin,  which  the  dollar  is  not;  that  the  dollar  might  be  treated 
as  arbitrarily  and  unceremoniously  as  we  pleased,  but  that  the 
same  experiment  could  not  be  tried  upon  the  guinea,  without  an 
alteration  of  the  law,  and  that  alterations  of  the  law  are  danger- 
ous;"  I  reply,  that  the  law  is  much  less  in  our  way  on  this  point 
than  gentlemen  seem  to  apprehend.  It  is  true  that  the  dollar  is  a 
foreign  coin,  of  which  our  laws  take  no  specific  cognizance;  but 
it  is  equally  true  that  there  is  another  coin  in  the  country  not  a 
legal  coin — a  coin  of  which  the  law  takes  no  notice,  except  to  put 
it  out  of  its  protection;  which  no  man  is  obliged,  or  even  permit- 
ted, to  receive  from  another  in  payment;  which,  in  short,  is  as 
completely  devoid  of  the  qualities  of  British  coin  as  the  dollar, 
and  indeed  more  completely  so,  since  it  is  expressly  stripped  of 
those  qualities  by  statute.  Now  if  such  a  coin  as  this  can  be  found, 
where  is  the  harm  of  trying  upon  it  the  same  experiment  which 
has  been  so  happily  applied  to  the  dollar;  especially  if  it  be,  as 
fortunately  it  is,  a  gold  coin,  and,  therefore,  capable  of  supplying 
that  share  which  dollars  do  not  supply  towards  the  completement 
of  a  metallic  circulation?  The  coin  to  which  I  allude  is  one  which 
my  honourable  friend  near  me  (Mr.  Huskisson)  is  accused  of 
having  treated  in  his  pamphlet  with  exaggerated  respect,  but 
which,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  has,  I  think,  been  too  much 
disparaged — I  mean  the  light  guinea. 

The  light  guinea  is  not,  any  more  than  the  dollar,  a  legal  coin. 
A  guinea  having  arrived  by  wear  at  a  certain  degree  of  lightness,, 
is  at  once  divested  by  law  of  all  its  qualities  of  coin,  and  is  re- 
duced to  its  intrinsic  value,  whatever  that  may  be,  as  bullion.  It 
happens,  to  be  sure,  at  the  present  moment,  that  this  reduction,  as 
measured  in  bank  notes,  is  a  promotion.  But  that  is  equally  true 
in  respect  to  the  dollar.  The  rate  at  which  the  dollar  now  passes 
is  not  only  higher  than  it  was  some  time  ago,  but  higher  than  that 
which  it  bears,  from  its  intrinsic  value,  in  comparison  with  the  le- 
gal coin  of  the  country.  Whether  it  was  right  to  raise  the  de- 
nomination of  the  dollar,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  give  an 
opinion  : — that  is  done.  But  upon  the  principle,  whatever  it  was, 
on  which  the  denomination  of  the  dollar  was  raised,  there  can 
surely  be  no  objection  to  suffering  the  light  guinea  to  go  for  what 
it  is  worth,  anil  thereby  obtaining  an  anomalous  gold  currency  to 
correspond  with  the  anomalous  silver  currency,  each  alike  inde- 
pendent of  the  Legal  coin  of  the  realm. 

The  legal  coin — the  guinea  of  full  lawful  weight — would  still 
remain,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  in  that  of  the  imagination,  and  in 
the  argumenl  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  as  the  equivalent 
for  hank  notes.  It  would  not  often  come  forth  indeed  to  afford 
a  practical  illustration  of  his  argument:  but  he  might,  continue  to 


160  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

enjoy  the  satisfaction  of  maintaining,  as  he  does  now,  as  an  ab- 
stract proposition,  that  bank  notes  and  guineas  are  equivalent  in 
law. 

Meantime  the  advantage  derived  from  the  marketableness  of 
light  guineas  would  be,  either  to  retain  at  least  that  portion  of  our 
metallic  circulation  at  home,  or  to  make  the  foreigner  or  the 
enemy  pay  its  furl  value  for  it  on  exportation. 

It  is  on  all  hands  acknowledged — by  the  right  honourable  gen- 
tleman and  his  supporters  it  is  earnestly  contended — that  our  gold 
finds  its  way  out  of  the  country,  either  in  discharge  of  the  balance 
of  payments,  or  into  the  coffers  of  the  enemy.  That  enemy  is 
by  some  persons  represented  as  sitting  like  a  great  spider  in  the 
midst  of  its  web,  and  drawing  along  the  living  lines  and  fibres  of 
its  net  all  the  gold  of  Great  Britain,  into  an  abyss  from  which  it 
is  never  to  return.  By  what  process  this  can  be  effected,  except 
by  that  of  a  trade  of  some  sort  or  other,  we  are  not  told,  and  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  Among  all  the  dangers  of  the  country, 
many  of  them  real  and  formidable,  a  danger  happily  more  vision- 
ary than  this  was  never  apprehended  by  a  disordered  imagination. 

That  our  gold,  however,  goes  from  us,  is  generally  asserted 
and  believed;  and  whether  by  a  natural  efflux,  or  by  some  un- 
heard-of power  of  magnetic  attraction  in  Buonaparte,  is,  in  re- 
gard to  the  question  which  we  are  considering,  of  little  moment. 
It  goes,  and  we  wish  to  stop  it.  It  can  be  stopped  effectually  only 
by  being  retained  in  circulation  at  home.  It  can  be  retained  in 
circulation  (as  those  who  raised  the  denomination  of  the  dollar, 
and  who  gave  the  reasons  which  were  given  for  raising  it,  must 
of  all  men  be  the  last  to  deny,)  only  by  allowing  it  to  pass  for 
what  it  is  intrinsically  worth,  or  what  it  will  fetch  in  the  market. 

Here,  however,  I  shall  be  met  by  an  argument  which  has  been 
urged  with  much  vehemence  and  solemnity  by  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  (Mr.  Vansittart,)  that  the  law  absolutely  prohibits 
the  exportation  of  our  coin,  and  that  any  reasoning,  therefore, 
which  is  founded  upon  the  supposition  of  that  exportation,  is  not 
only  incorrect,  but  is  of  a  most  immoral  and  dangerous  tendency, 
as  holding  out  encouragement  to  perjury  and  fraud.  Let  us  ex- 
amine this  argument. 

We  are  all  agreed  upon  the  fact,  that  gold  bullion  is  at  a  high 
price  in  the  currency  of  this  country.  We  are  all  agreed,  that 
either  as  the  consequence  of  this  high  price  or  as  the  cause  of  it, 
or  both,  there  is  a  great  scarcity  of  gold  bullion  in  this  country. 
We  are  all  agreed  that  the  gold  coin  has  nearly  vanished  from 
circulation;  and  nobody  doubts,  so  far  as  I  have  heard,  and  nobody 
has  asserted  more  strenuously  than  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man and  those  who  side  with  him,  that  this  high  price  and  scarcity 
of  bullion,  and  this  vanishing  of  our  gold  coin,  are  infallible  in- 


THE  BULLION   COMMITTEE.  161 

dications  of  a  large  exportation  of  gold;  of  which  exportation  a 
large  part  must,  as  infallibly,  have  consisted  of  coin,  either  melt- 
or  unmelted.  Upon  these  facts,  I  say,  we  are  all  agreed.  Now 
I  ask,  is  it  not  idle,  is  it  not  absurd,  to  assume  for  the  purpose  of 
argument  a  supposed  obedience  to  the  law,  which  notoriously  has 
no  existence;  and  to  deny  for  the  purpose  of  argument,  a  fact 
which  is  acknowleded  by  all  to  be  the  surest  symptom,  and  con- 
tended by  many  to  be  the  origin  and  cause,  of  the  evils  which 
have  brought  us  to  the  necessity  of  the  present  discussion  ?  Is  it 
not  wholly  unworthy  an  assembly  of  legislators,  to  pretend  an 
ignorance  in  our  legislative  capacity  of  that,  which  every  one  of 
us,  in  his  individual  capacity,  perfectly  believes  to  be  true?  Is 
the  existence  of  a  statute  which,  as  we  know,  is  openly  violated 
(and  for  the  most  part  with  impunity)  every  day  in  the  week,  to 
be  pleaded  as  a  bar  against  any  attempt  to  remedy  the  evils  which 
confessedly  result  from  its  violation  ? 

What  then  can  be  more  unjust,  or  more  ridiculous,  than  to  rep- 
resent those  persons  as  countenancing  and  encouraging  perjury 
and  fraud,  who  only  tell  you  what  you  yourselves  avow,  that  per- 
jury and  fraud  are  and  have  always  been  committed  under  your 
present  system  of  law;  and  who,  inferring  that  they  always  will 
be  committed  under  that  system,  suggest  to  you  the  expediency 
of  amending  it?  Who  are  the  encouragers  of  crimes? — they 
Avho,  finding  the  existing  law  notoriously  inadequate  to  counter- 
act the  temptation  to  commit  them,  propose  either  to  change  the 
law  or  remove  the  temptation; — or  they  who  content  themselves 
with  whimpering  over  the  depravity  of  human  nature,  and,  in- 
stead of  endeavouring  to  prevent  the  commission  of  crime,  con- 
sole themselves  with  the  reflection  that  the  mischief  to  the  pub- 
lic is  only  in  proportion  to  the  guilt  of  the  criminal  ? 

He  was  not  an  unwise  or  an  unjust  judge,  of  whom  it  is  re- 
corded, that — 

"  He  sent  the  thief  who  stole  the  gold  away, 
And  punish' d  him  who  put  it  in  his  way." 

Undoubtedly  it  is  neither  wise  nor  just  to  place  temptations  in 
men's  way,  which  we  know  by  constant  experience  to  be  suffi- 
cient to  overpower  the  positive  enactments  of  law.  It  is  neither 
politic  nor  moral  to  resort  on  every  occasion  to  the  obligation  of 
oaths  as  supplementary  to  a  defective  legislation.  This  policy 
unfortunately  pervades  too  many  of  our  statutes;  and  it  is  but 
rarely  successful  in  its  object,  never  perhaps  where  considerable 
gain  and  great  facility  conspire  to  tempt  to  perjury.  The  exporta- 
tion of  coin,  or  of  bullion  melted  from  coin,  when  the  exchanges 
are  unfavourable  beyond  a  certain  limit,  is  looked  upon  as  so 
much  in  the  natural  course  of  things,  that  most  writers,  who  have 
treated  of  coinage  and  of  trade,  have  laid  it  down  as  a  conse- 
23  p* 


162  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

quence  not  to  be  disputed,  and  not  even  necessary  to  be  proved. 
According  to  the  concurrent  opinions  of  such  writers,  the  efflux 
of  bullion  from  one  country  to  another  is  governed  by  causes 
nearly  as  steady  and  uniform  in  their  operation,  as  those  which 
govern  the  seasons  or  the  tides.  As  well  might  you  pretend  to 
fix  a  limit  on  the  shore,  and  bid  the  flowing  ocean  advance  no 
farther,  as  attempt  by  the  interposition  of  a  statute  to  stop  the 
tide  of  the  precious  metals  in  whatever  direction  it  is  made  to 
flow  by  the  influence  of  commercial  necessity  and  commercial 
demand. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman,  and  those  who  adopt  his 
views  of  the  present  question,  acknowledge  the  force  of  these 
principles:  they  attribute,  in  fact,  the  whole  of  our  difficulties 
to  their  operation.  There  is,  indeed,  a  slight  difference  of  opinion 
among  them  as  to  the  cause  of  the  export  of  our  gold;  some  at- 
tributing it  to  the  demand  for  gold  in  the  market  of  the  conti- 
nent, others  to  the  necessity  of  remitting  it  from  hence,  in  pay- 
ment of  the  balance  of  trade;  but  all  concurring  that,  whatever 
may  be  the  degree  in  which  either  of  these  causes,  separately  or 
jointly,  operate,  the  result  is  an  irresistible  attraction  of  the  gold 
of  this  country  to  the  continent.  Is  it  not,  then,  with  marvellous 
inconsistency  that  these  same  gentlemen  oppose  the  mere  exist- 
ence of  a  powerless  law,  and  a  high-coloured  description  of  the 
crimes  which  it  occasions  and  constitutes,  as  an  answer,  and  the 
only  answer,  to  those  who  contend,  that,  if  the  evil  which  the 
law  is  intended  to  prevent,  be  indeed  one  which  it  is  important 
to  check,  and  if  the  efflux  of  our  gold  be  certain,  so  long  as  the 
force  of  the  temptation  is  stronger  than  the  restraint  of  the  law, 
it  is  necessary,  and  it  would  be  as  wise  as  humane,  either  to  alter 
the  law,  or  to  diminish  the  temptation  ? 

I  may,  perhaps,  be  inclined  to  believe,  that  the  repeal  of  this 
law  would  be  in  itself  no  unwise  measure.  That  belief  might  be 
supported  by  the  opinion  of  many  able  writers  and  experienced 
statesmen,  and  by  the  example  of  many  of  those  states  in  which 
commerce  has  been  most  flourishing,  and  credit  and  coin  most 
abundant.  ,  I  admit  that  the  immediate,  the  momentary  effect  of 
this  repeal,  (if  unaccompanied  by  any  other  measure,)  might  be 
to  increase  the  exportation  of  our  gold,  by  removing  the  scruples 
of  such  persons  as  may  now,  perhaps,  be  wavering  between 
temptation  on  the  one  hand,  and  obedience  to  the  law  on  the 
other.  Even  so,  however,  it  would  have  the  benefit  of  saving 
all  that  perjury  and  fraud  which  shock,  so  justly,  the  moral  feel- 
ings of  the  House;  and  of  extending  to  the  honest  trader  a  con- 
venience which  is  now  exclusively  reserved  for  the  dishonest  one. 
But  in  the  long  run,  I  certainly  do  not  believe  that  the  repeal  of 


THE  BULLION   COMMITTEE.  163 

this  law  would  swell,  by  a  single  guinea,  the  amount  of  the  ex- 
port of  our  gold. 

It  is  true  that  the  repeal  of  this  law  alone  would  not  have  a 
necessary  tendency  to  bring  gold  again  into  circulation  in  this 
country,  either  by  recalling  what  has  been  exported,  or  by  en- 
ticing what  is  now  hoarded,  out  of  its  hiding  places.  That  would 
be  the  effect  of  the  other  alteration  to  which  I  have  already  al- 
luded, of  suspending  the  law  and  the  proclamation  which  limit 
the  current  rate  of  the  guinea,  and  permitting  it  to  pass  according 
to  its  intrinsic  value. 

I  have,  indeed,  stated  this  proposition  hitherto  only  as  applica- 
ble to  the  light  guinea;  of  which  the  purchase,  at  its  intrinsic  value, 
is  certainly  no  infringement  either  of  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of 
any  existing  proclamation  or  statute.  I  do  not  know  whether  I 
might,  without  presumption,  say,  that  the  law  is  by  no  means 
clear  on  this  point,  even  with  respect  to  guineas  of  full  legal 
weight.  Guineas  of  legal  weight,  however,  I  left  out  of  my  prop- 
osition in  the  former  part  of  my  argument,  expressly,  as  I  said, 
in  the  hope  of  conciliating  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  by 
leaving  untouched,  in  respect  to  guineas  of  full  weight,  his  propo- 
sition of  the  equivalency  of  bank  paper  and  legal  coin.  But,  if 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  should  be  disposed  to  concur  with 
me  at  all,  I  trust,  upon  reflection,  he  would  not  be  prevented  from 
doing  so  by  the  contemplation  of  this  trifling  advantage  to  his  ar- 
gument. If  he  will  consent  to  let  guineas  go  for  what  they  are 
worth  in  the  market,  he  will  have  a  gold  currency;  he  will  prevent 
the  exportation  of  our  coin,  he  will  get  rid  of  fraud  and  perjury: 
and  all  this  benefit  he  will  purchase  at  no  greater  expense,  than 
that  of  being  one  argument  out  of  pocket.  It  will  then,  to  be 
sure,  be  vain  for  him  to  contend,  against  the  daily  evidence  of 
men's  senses,  that  bank  paper  and  guineas  arc,  at  their  respective 
denominations,  equivalent  to  each  other:  but  at  least  we  shall  have 
them  both,  and  they  may  circulate  amicably  together. 

That  by  no  other  possible  means  the  coin  of  the  country  can 
be  retained  in  circulation,  so  long  as  the  precious  metal  of  which 
it  is  composed,  is  intrinsically  of  a  value  so  much  higher  than  the 
rate  at  which  it  is  estimated  in  our  currency,  is  a  proposition  of 
which  all  experience,  as  well  as  all  reason,  establishes  the  truth. 
The  present  state  of  the  law  in  the  present  state  of  our  currency, 
operates,  in  fact,  as  a  bounty  upon  the  exportation  of  our  coin. 

Of  the  two  causes  of  the  export  of  gold,  which  are  admitted 
by  the  righl  honourable  gentleman  and  his  friends,  the  supposed 
demand  for  gold  on  the  continent,  and  the  supposed  necessity  for 
exporting  it  to  set  right  the  balance  of  our  trade,  the  first  will  un- 
doubtedly have  an  uncontrolled  operation,  so  long  as  there  is  no 
counter-demand  for  gold  in  the  market  at  home;  so  long  as  the 


164  ON  THE  REPORT  OP 

Bank  do  not  purchase,  and  as  no  one  else  purchases  here,  except 
for  exportation:  the  second  would,  in  a  natural  state  of  things,  find 
its  limit  far  within  the  amount  of  the  balance  to  be  set  right;  it 
would  cease  to  operate,  whenever  the  scarcity  of  gold,  produced 
here  by  exportation,  and  the  plenty  produced  on  the  continent  by 
its  importation,  rendered  gold  less  eligible  for  transmission  abroad 
than  any  other  merchantable  commodity.  But  this  limit  it  can 
never  find,  so  long  as  gold  is  the  only  merchantable  commodity 
for  which  the  consumption  of  this  country  affords  no  market. 

Independently,  however,  of  these  causes,  the  difference  between 
the  real  value  of  the  precious  metal  and  that  at  which  it  is  rated 
in  our  currency,  would  be  itself  sufficient  to  ensure  us  against  the 
continuance  of  the  guinea  in  circulation.  Demand  on  the  conti- 
nent might  be  counteracted  by  demand  here;  and  gold  would 
cease  to  be  a  preferable  article  for  transmission  abroad,  from  the 
moment  at  which  it,  like  other  articles,  could  be  sold  for  its  real 
value  at  home.  But,  imprisoned  in  the  coin,  and  degraded  by  its 
imprisonment,  gold  has  an  unconquerable  tendency  to  escape  from 
a  situation  so  unnatural:  and  it  would  make  its  escape  from  such 
a  situation,  even  although  you  do  not  owe  the  continent  any  thing; 
and  although  there  were  no  more  demand  on  the  continent  for 
gold,  than  for  any  other  article  of  merchandise. 

But  this,  I  may  be  told,  is  the  language  of  theory.  Is  not  the 
principle,  then,  recognized  by  any  sober  practical  authority?  Let 
us  hear  the  statute-book  itself.  "  Whereas  it  has  been  a  practice," 
says  the  preamble  to  the  Act  14  Geo.  III.  c.  70,  "to  export  the 
new  and  perfect  coin  of  the  realm  for  private  advantage,  and  to 
the  great  detriment  of  the  public;  and  the  like  practice  will  con- 
tinue," (adds  this  theoretical  and  visionary  preamble)"while  pieces, 
differing  greatly  in  weight,  are  current  under  the  same  denomina- 
tion, and  at  the  same  rate  of  value." 

The  persons  who  framed  this  Act,  and  framed  it  for  the  express 
and  practical  purpose  of  restoring  the  credit  of  our  currency, 
could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  penalties  under  which  the  exportation 
of  coin  was  prohibited;  yet  we  see,  that  in  spite  of  these  penal- 
ties, they  take  for  granted  as  inevitable  the  "  continued"  exporta- 
tion of  the  coin,  so  long  as  the  temptation  to  export  it  continues. 
We  see  further,  that,  in  their  opinion,  conformity  to  standard 
weight  is  the  distinctive  quality  by  which  the  value  of  money  is 
to  be  estimated.  We  see,  lastly,  that,  without  any  reference  to 
demand  for  gold  on  the  continent,  without  any  reference  to 
an  unfavourable  balance  of  trade,  the  certain  result  of  an  attempt 
to  circulate  together,  "  under  the  same  denomination  and  at  the 
same  rate  of  value,"  two  descriptions  of  currency,  differing  in 
intrinsic  value  from  each  other,  is  to  drive  that  which  is  of  the 
higher  intrinsic  value  out  of  circulation. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  165 

This  is,  in  fact,  as  I  understand  it,  the  whole  of  the  Bullion 
Committee  upon  this  subject;  and  so  far  from  having  the  guilt  or 
the  merit  of  novelty,  we  find  it  assumed  six  and  thirty  years  ago, 
in  the  preamble  of  an  Act  of  Parliament,  as  a  doctrine  established 
and  self-evident. 

Of  this  doctrine,  thus  adopted  by  Parliament  in  the  year  1774, 
there  is  an  earlier  and  not  less  authoritative  recognition  in  the 
Report  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  in  the  year  1717,  of  the  existence 
of  which  Report  I  was  surprised  to  hear  a  right  honourable  friend 
of  mine,  (Mr.  Rose)  declare  himself  entirely  ignorant.  A  person 
so  distinguished  as  my  right  honourable  friend  unquestionably  is, 
by  great  knowledge  and  indefatigable  research,  I  should  have 
thought,  could  hardly  have  missed  a  document  of  such  interest 
and  importance,  and  so  immediately  bearing  upon  the  subject  be- 
fore us.  This  Report  was  made  by  Sir  Isaac  Newton  in  his  ca- 
pacity of  Master  of  the  Mint,  and  is  to  be  found  in  our  Journals.* 

It  is  too  long  for  me  to  trouble  the  House  with  reading  it;  but 
gentlemen  will  find,  upon  looking  into  it,  that  upon  a  reference 
made  to  him  by  the  Lords  of  the  Treasury,  as  to  the  best  method 
of  preventing  the  melting  down  of  the  silver  coin,  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton represents  the  temptation  to  melt  and  export  it  as  "  arising 
from  the  higher  price  of  silver  in  other  places  than  in  England  in 
proportion  to  gold;"  that  is  to  say,  from  the  circumstance,  that  the 
silver  coin,  then  our  standard  currency,  was,  by  the  regulations 
of  our  Mint,  exchangeable  with  the  gold  coin  at  a  rate  somewhat 
lower  than  that  at  which  it  was  exchangeable,  as  bullion,  with  gold 
in  the  general  market  of  Europe.  So  small  was  this  difference, 
that  the  taking  of  sixpence  from  the  current  rate  of  the  guinea 
was  estimated  by  Sir  Isaac  Newton  as  sufficient  to  cure  the  evil; 
and  yet,  small  as  the  difference  was,  during  its  continuance,  and 
by  its  operation  alone,  the  silver  coin  of  standard  weight  was  daily 
vanishing  from  circulation. 

In  this  report  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  and  in  the  principles  which 
are  laid  down  for  it,  is  to  be  found  the  answer  to  many  of  my 
right  honourable  friend's  (the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer's)  ob- 
servations upon  that  part  of  the  Report  of  the  Bullion  Committee, 
which  refers  to  the  re-coinage  of  the  silver  currency  in  the  year 
1696.  The  subsequent  disappearance  of  the  new  silver  coin,  is  not, 
as  my  right  honourable  friend  seemed  to  insinuate,  a  proof  that  the 
re-coinage  at  that  time  had  been  unadvisedly  undertaken;  or  that 
it  was  not  the  only  cure  that  could  be  applied  to  that  depreciation 
of  the  currency,  which  Parliament  had  attempted  in  vain  to  rem- 
edy (as  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  state)  by  a  penal  law. 
It  is  true  that,  by  a  slight  error  in  the  valuation  of  the  two  pre- 

Vol.  XVIII.  p.  664. 


166  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

cious  metals  with  respect  to  each  other,  the  silver  coin  was  rated 
a  small  degree  below  its  just  proportion  to  gold;  and  that,  in  con- 
sequence, it  began  to  disappear  not  long  after  the  recoinage  was 
completed.  But  this  technical  error  does  not  in  any  degree  vitiate 
the  principles  on  which  the  re-coinage  had  been  adopted.  It  in 
no  degree  diminishes  or  affects  the  merit  of  those  who  had  the 
eourage  to  undertake,  and  the  firmness  to  carry  through  that  im- 
portant work,  in  spite  of  the  prevalence  for  a  time,  even  in  this 
House,  of  prejudices  very  much  akin  to  those  of  the  present  day. 

Those  prejudices  were  sufficiently  strong  to  defeat  for  a  con- 
siderable time  the  intentions  of  the  Government,  after  they  had 
upon  mature  deliberation  convinced  themselves  of  the  absolute 
necessity  of  the  measure;  but  the  good  sense,  temper,  and  perse- 
verance of  that  Administration  triumphed  in  the  end,  and  it  is  no 
disparagement  to  my  right  honourable  friend  to  recommend  the 
example  of  the  Administration  of  1696  to  his  serious  consid- 
eration. 

The  war  in  which  King  William  was  then  engaged  against 
France,  may  not  have  been  equal  with  the  present  war  in  magni- 
tude of  exertion.  Yet  if  we  compare  the  means  of  the  country 
at  that  period  with  its  present  means,  and  consider  the  exertions 
which  were  then  made,  it  would  perhaps  be  difficult  to  say  that 
any  excuse  could  be  offered  now,  which  was  not  in  a  great  meas- 
ure applicable  then,  for  sparing,  amidst  the  burdens  of  war,  any 
internal  effort  which  was  not  absolutely  indispensable.  But  the 
restoration  of  the  currency  to  a  sound  state  was  then  deemed  to 
be  indispensable;  and  the  war  was  considered  not  as  a  reason  for 
postponing  the  required  effort,  but  as  an  additional  reason  for 
making  it  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

The  high  price  of  gold  was  then,  as  it  is  now,  one  striking  in- 
dication of  the  deteriorated  state  of  the  currency.  The  indica- 
tion might,  indeed,  be  at  that  time  more  undeniable;  because, 
gold  not  being  then  our  standard  coin,  and  the  guinea  not  being 
limited  by  law  as  to  the  rate  at  which  it  should  pass  current,  the 
high  price  became  immediately  visible  in  the  gold  coin  as  well  as 
in  bullion,  the  guinea  being  actually  exchangeable  for  as  much  as 
thirty  shillings  of  the  clipped  silver.  The  unfavourable  state  of 
our  exchanges  with  foreign  countries  afforded  then,  as  it  does 
now,  the  other  most  unerring  proof  that  all  was  not  sound  in  the 
currency  of  this  country;  a  proof  of  which  my  right  honourable 
friend  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  clearly  admits  the  validity, 
when  he  admits  that  the  unfavourableness  of  the  exchange  might 
probably  now  be  corrected  by  correcting  the  excess,  or  (if  he  ob- 
jects to  the  word  excess)  diminishing  the  abundance  of  our  paper 
currency.  This  admission  I  understood  my  right  honourable 
friend  to   make   in   the  most  unequivocal  terms;    not   meaning 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  167 

thereby  that  I  understood  him  to  admit  that  it  was  advisable  to 
diminish  the  paper  currency  for  the  sake  of  correcting  the  unfa- 
vourableness  of  the  exchange,  but  simply  that  such  a  correction 
of  the  exchange  would  be  the  effect  of  such  a  diminution  of 
paper. 

This  leads  me  to  consider  the  subject  of  the  exchanges,  as  it 
bears  upon  that  of  depreciation.  I  shall  treat  it  as  concisely  as  I 
can;  both  because  I  must  confess,  that  with  all  the  attention 
which  I  have  bestowed  upon  it,  I  am  perfectly  conscious  that  I 
have  not  been  able  to  unravel  all  the  intricacies  of  the  subject; 
and  also,  because  it  appears  to  me  that  the  whole  question  as  to 
depreciation  is  disposed  of  by  the  preceding  part  of  the  argument; 
this  is  to  say,  by  the  comparison  of  currency  with  bullion.  The 
state  of  the  exchanges  may  add  some  illustration  to  that  argument, 
but  is  not  wanted  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  it. 

If  that  which  constitutes  the  par  of  exchange  between  any  two 
countries  be  (as,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  it  is)  an  equal  quantity  of 
precious  metal  in  their  respective  currencies,  this  definition  alone 
sufficiently  shows,  that  whatever  other  considerations  there  may 
be,  whether  growing  out  of  law  or  out  of  opinion,  which  regulate 
and  sustain  the  rate  of  a  currency  at  home,  its  value  can  be  esti- 
mated abroad  by  no  other  criterion  than  that  of  the  quantity  of 
precious  metal  for  which  a  specific  portion  of  it  is  exchangeable. 
The  foreigner  knows  nothing  of  the  value  of  the  currency  of  any 
other  country  except  that  a  certain  portion  of  that  currency  re- 
presents, and  will  procure  in  his  own  country  a  certain  quantity 
of  precious  metal. 

The  question  of  the  exchanges  would  therefore  be  as  simple 
as  the  question  of  depreciation,  if  there  were  not  confessedly 
other  causes  which  operate  upon  the  exchange,  and  the  operation 
of  which  may  sometimes  be  concurrent  with  that  of  the  relative 
values  of  the  respective  currencies,  and  sometimes  may  tend  to 
counteract  it. 

A  country  which  imports  from  another  more  than  it  exports 
to  it  of  all  other  articles  of  commerce,  is  supposed  to  make  up 
the  difference  by  a  transmission  of  bullion.  In  point  of  fact,  this 
transmission  takes  place  in  much  fewer  instances  than  the  theory 
>  supposes;  but  the  necessity  of  making  it  either  actually  or  virtu- 
ally, causes  a  variation  in  the  rate  of  exchange  in  favour  of  the 
creditor,  and  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  debtor  country;  the 
amount  of  which  variation  is  measured  by,  and  expresses,  the 
cost  of  making  the  transmission. 

Supposing  the  currencies  of  two  countries,  each  in  a  perfectly 
sound  state,  any  variation  from  the  par  of  exchange  between 
them  can  be  produced  only  by  the  one  country  having  a  debt  to 
discharge  to  1  he  other.     Supposing  the  debts  and  credits  of  two 


168  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

countries  to  be  exactly  balanced,  any  variation  from  the  par  of 
exchange  between  them  can  only  be  produced  by  a  depreciation 
in  the  currency  of  one  of  them.  These  causes,  however,  may 
both  exist  at  the  same  time;  and  they  may  exist,  either  on  oppo- 
site sides,  or  together;  in  the  one  case  aggravating,  in  the  other 
counteracting  each  other. 

A  country  might  be  largely  in  debt  to  another,  and  yet,  if  its 
currency  were  sound,  and  the  currency  of  the  creditor  country 
deteriorated,  the  course  of  the  exchange  would  exhibit  only  the 
difference  between  the  contending  effects  of  such  deterioration 
on  the  other  hand,  and  such  debt  on  the  other:  and  it  might  hap- 
pen that  these  effects  might  be  so  precisely  balanced,  as  exactly 
to  neutralize  each  other.  But  when  a  country  is  in  the  situation 
of  being  indebted  to  another,  and  at  the  same  time  of  having  a 
depreciated  currency,  the  depression  of  the  exchange  exhibits  the 
combined  effect  of  both  causes. 

This  last  may,  or  may  not,  be  our  present  situation.  For  I  am 
far  from  taking  upon  myself  to  assert,  that  the  balance  of  the 
payments  from  us  to  the  continent,  enters  for  nothing  into  the 
unfavourable  exchange  against  this  country.  I  only  deny  that  it 
can  be  the  sole  cause  of  that  unfavourableness.  Still  less  do  I 
pretend  to  define  the  share  which  this  cause  may  have  in  pro- 
ducing the  effect.  But  as  it  is  obvious  that  the  depression  of  the 
exchange  from  this  cause  can  never,  for  any  great  continuance  of 
time,  very  far  exceed  the  expense  of  transmitting  bullion  for  the 
liquidation  of  the  balance  of  payments;  as  it  is  not  only  acknow- 
ledged but  contended,  that  bullion  for  this  purpose  is  in  fact 
transmitted;  as  the  expense  of  the  transmission  is  perfectly 
known,  in  all  its  several  parts  of  price,  freight,  and  insurance; 
and  as  their  collective  result  is  notoriously  very  far  within  the 
limits  of  the  actual  depression  of  the  exchange,  there  will  remain 
of  that  depression  a  large  share  to  be  accounted  for,  after  every 
deduction  that  can  be  made  on  account  of  the  balance  of  pay- 
ments, and  that  remainder  can  no  otherwise  be  accounted  for 
than  by  the  deterioration  of  our  currency. 

The  state  of  the  exchanges,  therefore,  is  a  proof,  though  I  do 
not  admit  it  to  be  a  necessary  proof,  still  less  could  I  allow  it  to 
be  the  test,  of  a  depreciated  currency.  I  do  not  admit  it  to  be  a 
necessary  proof;  because,  the  price  of  bullion  in  the  currency,  is 
proof  sufficient  without  it.  I  do  not  allow  it  to  be  the  test;  be- 
cause under  certain  circumstances,  a  currency  might  be  depreci- 
ated to  a  limited  degree,  without  producing  a  visible  depression 
of  the  exchange;  nay,  it  might  coexist  with  an  exchange  posi- 
tively favourable.  These  cases  would  arise  whenever  the  effect 
produced  upon  the  exchange  by  the  balance  of  payments  in  favour 
of  the  country  whose  currency  is  depreciated  in  the  one  case  ex- 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  169 

actly  equalled,  or,  in  the  other  exceeded,  the  degree  of  the  depre- 
ciation. But  though  a  depreciation  of  the  currency  might  thus 
exist  without  inducing  an  unfavourable  exchange,  a  state  of  the 
exchange  unfavourable  to  a  great  degree,  and  progressively  grow- 
ing worse  for  a  great  length  of  time,  is  an  infallible  indication  of 
a  depreciated  currency. 

This  is  all  the  use  that  I  think  it  necessary  to  make  of  the  ar- 
guments to  be  drawn  from  the  exchanges;  and  so  far  as  this  goes, 
I  cannot  understand  how  any  one  can  doubt  as  to  their  bearing. 
We  do  not  doubt  with  respect  to  other  countries,  that  a  sound  or 
unsound  state  of  their  currency  influences  the  state  of  their  ex- 
changes. When  we  see  the  exchanges  between  Hamburgh  or 
Amsterdam  on  the  one  hand,  and  Russia  or  Austria  on  the  other, 
unfavourable  in  a  great  degree  to  either  of  the  two  latter  coun- 
tries, we  have  no  hesitation  in  at  once  ascribing  that  unfavoura- 
bleness,  in  great  part  at  least,  to  a  depreciation  of  its  currency. 

My  right  honourable  friend  (the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer) 
has  taken  what  I  must  think  not  a  very  fair  advantage  of  an  argu- 
ment of  an  honourable  gentleman  opposite  to  me  (Mr.  Sharp,) 
when  he  has  represented  him  as  having  recommended  the  general 
policy  of  Holland  and  of  Hamburgh  as  an  object  of  imitation  for 
this  country;  because,  the  honourable  gentleman  stated  that  by 
not  issuing  a  paper-money,  the  currencies  of  Holland  and  of  Ham- 
burgh had  been  preserved  from  depreciation.  The  honourable 
gentleman  certainly  did  not  guard  and  qualify  his  statement  with 
all  the  circumstances  which  were  nevertheless  obviously  connect- 
ed, in  his  mind,  with  the  proposition  which  he  was  advancing; 
but  it  is  quite  as  clear  that  nothing  but  the  strong  temptation  of 
flying  from  argument  to  declamation,  could  have  led  my  right 
honourable  friend  so  far  to  mistake  the  honourable  gentleman's 
meaning.  The  meaning  of  the  honourable  gentleman  evidently 
was  not  to  hold  out  Holland  as  having  been  wise  in  its  submis- 
sions and  compliances  towards  France,  and  as  enjoying  the  re- 
ward of  her  prudent  obedience  in  a  state  of  enviable  happiness 
and  prosperity.  Still  less  could  he  intend  (how  is  it  possible  that 
any  rational  being  could  be  for  a  moment  suspected  of  intending?) 
to  extol  the  prowess  of  Hamburgh.  "  Prowess"  was,  I  think, 
the  word  which  my  right  honourable  friend  did  not  disdain  to  put 
into  the  honourable  gentleman's  mouth,  for  tbe  sake  of  making 
an  indignant  comment  upon  it.  The  scope  of  tbe  honourable  gen- 
tleman's argument  I  understood  to  be  simply  this: — that  if  Hol- 
land, impoverished  by  an  exhausting  war,  and  preyed  upon  by  an 
exacting  despotism — if  Hamburgh,  in  the  very  clutches  of  the 
French  power — if  these  unhappy  states,  stripped  of  their  com- 
merce and  independence,  could  yet  maintain  their  respective  cur- 
rencies undepreciated,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  a  state  of  war, 
24  Q 


170  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

however  expensive  and  burdensome — that  stagnation  of  com- 
merce— that  even  the  oppression  of  a  conquering  enemy — were 
not  sufficient  justifications,  much  less  necessary  causes,  of  such 
a  system  of  currency  as  that  which  (according  to  the  honour- 
able gentleman's  argument)  now  existed  in  this  country,  and  of 
which  my  right  honourable  friend  and  others  seemed  prepared  to 
justify  the  continuance,  so  long  at  least  as  the  war  shall  continue, 
as  our  commerce  shall  be  embarrassed,  and  as  our  enemy  shall 
persevere  in  his  present  system  of  measures.  This  is  what  I  un- 
derstood the  honourable  gentleman  to  contend;  and,  whatever 
might  be  the  worth  of  his  argument,  it  surely  was  not  open  to  the 
imputation  which  my  right  honourable  friend  found  it  convenient 
to  attach  to  it;  as  if  the  honourable  gentleman  had  been  guilty  of 
the  egregious  absurdity  of  proposing  for  the  imitation  of  this 
country  the  political  courage  of  the  Dutch,  and  the  military  prow- 
ess of  the  Hamburghers. 

I  am  not,  however,  disposed  to  deny  the  assertion  which  my 
right  honourable  friend  has  grounded  upon  this  argument,  that  in- 
ferences are  not  to  be  conclusively  drawn  from  the  establishments 
of  other  countries,  whether  political  or  commercial,  to  our  own. 
The  principles  of  public  credit  are  so  much  better  understood, 
and  so  much  more  religiously  observed  in  this  country,  the  line 
of  separation  between  the  financial  operations  of  the  State,  and 
the  concerns  of  the  National  Bank,  confounded  too  often  by  ar- 
bitrary governments,  is  here  so  distinctly  marked,  that  it  cannot 
be  doubted  but  many  general  propositions  are  true  of  paper  cur- 
rencies abroad,  which  would  be  utterly  inapplicable  to  the  system 
of  the  Bank  of  England. 

The  depreciation  of  the  Austrian  paper  money,  therefore,  which 
has  been  cited  and  commented  upon  by  my  honourable  friend 
near  me  (Mr.  Huskisson,)  is  not  precisely  an  example;  it  is  not 
a  counterpart  of  our  actual  situation;  but  it  does  afford  a  most  use- 
ful warning,  it  shows  how  rapidly  paper  money  sinks  in  value, 
when  once  power  has  been  in  any  degree  substituted  for  confi- 
dence; and  how  tremendously,  when  once  the  first  impulse  has 
been  given,  the  force  of  descent  accumulates  and  increases.  The 
depreciation  of  Austrian  paper  was  not,  in  its  origin,  like  that 
which  we  are  now  discussing;  there  was,  in  its  origin,  something 
of  discredit,  of  a  distrust  (that  is)  of  the  solidity  of  the  funds  upon 
which  the  paper  was  issued. 

If  solidity  of  funds,  however,  were  alone  sufficient  to  keep  up 
the  credit  of  a  paper,  even  the  assignats  of  France  would  not  have 
fallen  so  soon  and  so  rapidly  in  value.  The  rulers  of  France  by 
whom  that  paper  money  was  coined,  affected  to  be  surprised  at 
the  depreciation  of  securities,  resting,  as  they  contended,  on  foun- 
dations more  solid  than  those  of  the  Bank  of  England — and  cal- 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  171 

culated,  like  the  paper  of  the  Bank,  to  promote  the  prosperity  of 
the  country  in  which  it  circulated.  Well  and  wisely  did  Mr. 
Burke,  when,  in  the  language  of  an  orator,  and  in  the  spirit  of  a 
prophet,  he  foreshowed  that  series  and  succession  of  calamities, 
which  the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution,  in  all  its  parts, 
must  inevitably  produce — well  and  wisely  did  he  describe  those 
essential  qualities  of  the  paper  of  the  Bank  of  England  which 
constitute  its  real  value. 

"  They  (said  he,  speaking  of  the  National  Assembly)  imagine, 
that  our  "flourishing  state  in  England  is  owing  to  bank  paper,  and 
not  the  bank  paper  to  the  flourishing  condition  of  our  commerce, 
to  the  solidity  of  our  credit,  and  to  the  total  exclusion  of  all  idea 
of  power  from  any  part  of  the  transaction.  They  forget  that  in 
England  not  one  shilling  of  paper  money  of  any  description  is  re- 
ceived but  of  choice;  that  the  whole  had  its  origin  in  cash  actual- 
ly deposited;  and  that  it  is  convertible  at  pleasure,  in  an  instant, 
and  without  the  smallest  loss,  into  cash  again.  Our  paper  is  of 
value  in  commerce,  because  in  law  it  is  of  none.  It  is  powerful 
on  Change,  because  in  Westminster  Hall  it  is  impotent.  In  pay- 
ment of  a  debt  of  20/.  a  creditor  may  refuse  all  the  paper  of  the 
Bank  of  England.  Nor  is  there  among  us  a  single  public  security, 
of  any  quality  or  nature  whatsover,  that  is  enforced  by  authority. 
In  fact,  it  might  easily  be  shown,  that  our  paper  wealth,  instead 
of  lessening  the  real  coin,  has  a  tendency  to  increase  it;  that  in- 
stead of  being  a  substitute  for  money,  it  only  facilitates  its  entry, 
its  exit,  and  its  circulation;  that  it  is  the  symbol  of  prosperity, 
not  the  badge  of  distress.  Never  was  a  scarcity  of  cash  and  an 
exuberance  of  paper  a  subject  of  complaint  in  this  nation." 

These  were  the  characteristics  of  the  paper  of  the  Bank  of 
England,  when  Mr.  Burke  contrasted  it  with  the  assignats  of 
France.  Its  convertibility  into  specie  upon  demand,  was  suspend- 
ed by  the  Act  of  1797,  on  grounds  which  it  is  not  now  necessary 
to  discuss.  The  suspension  was,  for  a  series  of  years,  unattended 
with  any  symptoms  that  indicated  depreciation.  And  it  must  be 
our  wish,  as  well  as  our  interest,  to  believe  (what  from  reasoning 
also  appears  most  probable,)  that  this  suspension  alone,  if  not  fol- 
lowed up  by  excessive  issue,  might  have  endured,  as  long  as  the 
political  circumstances  of  the  state  might  have  rendered  its  en- 
durance necessary,  without  producing  that  effect.  But  if  that  ef- 
fect has  been  produced,  as  seems  to  be  established  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  contradiction,  let  us  not,  instead  of  attempting  to  cor- 
rect it,  endeavour  rather  to  palliate  its  evils,  and  to  reconcile 
ourselves  to  its  consequences.  Even  under  the  change  produced 
by  the  temporary  suspension  of  cash  payments,  let  us  remember, 
that  the  essential  and  fundamental  principles  upon  which  the  char- 
acter and  utility  of  bank  paper  rest,  are  those  described  in  the  ex- 


172  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

tract  which  I  have  just  quoted  from  Mr.  Burke.  Let  us  not,  un- 
der the  pressure  of  what  has  been  always  considered  as  a  temporary 
necessity,  and  in  the  despair  of  meeting  what  I  trust  is  no  more 
than  a  transitory,  and,  as  yet,  a  curable  evil,  abjure  this  language 
and  these  doctrines  of  Mr.  Burke,  and  adopt  in  their  stead  the 
cant  and  sophistry  of  those  against  whom  his  arguments  were  di- 
rected. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  imagine  that  between  the  notes  of  the 
Bank  of  England  and  the  assignats  of  the  National  Assembly, 
there  now  exists  that  resemblance  of  which  Mr.  Burke,  in  1791, 
denied  and  disproved  the  existence!  But  in  proportion  as  I  am 
satisfied  that  the  bank  note  is  of  a  different  nature  from  the  as- 
signat,  in  that  proportion  do  I  dislike  to  hear  them  defended  by 
the  same  arguments.  "  Ce  rCest  pas  V  assignat  qui  perd,  c'est 
P argent  qui  gag?ie,"  was  the  motto  and  the  doctrine  of  a  trea- 
tise, published  in  Paris  during  the  reign  of  the  National  Assem- 
bly, for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  the  credit  of  assignats,  by 
accounting  for  the  difference  between  their  nominal  and  ex- 
changeable values.  "  It  is  not  the  bank  note  which  loses,  but  the 
dollar  which  gains,"  is  the  argument  by  which  we  have  heard 
the  rise  in  the  denomination  of  the  dollar  explained:  "It  is  not 
paper  which  has  fallen,  but  gold  which  has  risen,"  is  the  argu- 
ment which  has  filled  all  the  pamphlets  and  all  the  speeches 
which  we  have  read  and  heard  upon  the  subject.  The  arguments 
are  identically  and  undistinguishedly  the  same.  I  wish  that  any 
of  my  honourable  friends,  who  maintain  the  undepreciated  state 
of  our  paper  currency,  could  satisfy  me  and  the  country  that 
there  is  some  essential  difference  in  their  mode  of  applying  them. 
I  wish  they  could  show  me  that  the  doctrine  of  the  French  pam- 
phlet might  be  false,  while  that  of  the  English  pamphlets  and 
of  their  own  speeches  is  true. 

I  do  not  need  to  be  reminded  of  the  many  essential  differ- 
ences in  the  circumstances  of  the  two  paper  currencies.  I  am 
here  speaking,  not  of  the  causes  of  depreciation,  but  simply  of 
the  fact.  That  assignats  were  discredited  in  all  sorts  of  ways,  no 
person  doubts.  But  the  price  of  the  precious  metals  in  those  as- 
signats was,  after  all,  the  evidence  and  the  measure  of  their  de- 
preciation. The  high  price  which  other  commodities  bore  in  as- 
signats, afforded,  to  be  sure,  strong  suspicions  of  depreciation; 
but  it  proved  the  fact,  and  established  the  degree  of  that  deprecia- 
tion only  as  compared  with  the  price  for  which  the  same  articles 
could  be  obtained  in  gold  or  silver.  I  say  this  to  guard  myself 
against  the  imputation  of  disparaging  bank  notes  by  comparing 
them  with  a  currency  so  notoriously  worthless  and  fraudulent. 
Paper  currency  may  be  depreciated  from  various  causes,  which 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  173 

have  no  resemblance  to  each  other;  but  whatever  may  be  the 
causes  of  depreciation,  the  test  of  it  is  in  all  cases  the  same. 

On  all  these  grounds,  I  own  my  entire,  though  unwilling  con- 
viction, that  a  depreciation  of  our  paper  currency  does  actually 
exist; — that  the  permanently  unfavourable  state  of  the  exchanges 
with  foreign  countries,  is  an  indication — and  the  long  continued 
high  price  of  bullion  at  home,  the  proof — of  it.  I  can  at  the 
same  time  most  truly  say,  that  I  shall  hold  myself  infinitely  in- 
debted to  any  man  who,  by  reasoning  and  argument,  by  reference 
to  admitted  facts  and  established  principles,  can  bring  me  back 
from  this  most  unsatisfactory  conviction.  No  man  set  out  in  the 
examination  of  the  subject  with  less  disposition  to  arrive  at  this 
conclusion:  and  no  man  would  more  gladly  find  reasons  that 
could  satisfy  his  own  mind  for  receding  from  it. 

I  confess,  however,  that  although  I  can  make  full  allowance  to 
others  for  the  same  unwillingness  which  I  have  felt  myself,  to 
believe  in  the  fact  of  an  existing  depreciation,  I  am  more  alarm- 
ed than  encouraged  by  the  apparent  disposition  rather  to  escape 
from  the  avowal  of  this  fact,  than  to  controvert  it.  I  cannot  see, 
without  concern,  the  constant  flight  from  the  point  at  which  the 
controversy  really  lies,  to  the  war,  to  the  harvest,  to  Portugal, 
and  to  Buonaparte;  in  short,  to  every  imaginable  topic,  except 
those  on  which  the  discussion  essentially  turns.  This  may  con- 
fuse and  perplex  the  argument,  by  raising  a  crowd  of  images, 
with  which  it  has  no  relation.  But  as  to  the  point  at  issue,  it 
seems  to  me  a  confession  of  weakness,  rather  than  a  display  of 
strength. 

Still  greater  is  my  apprehension,  when  I  hear  what  are  the  mo- 
tives assigned  for  continuing  the  present  state  of  our  currency, 
whatever  it  may  be,  rather  than  making  any  attempt  to  decide 
what  that  state  really  is,  and,  if  necessary,  to  correct  or  to  improve 
it.  Some  persons  there  are  indeed  so  sanguine  and  extravagant, 
as  to  deny  altogether  that  cither  improvement  or  correction  is 
necessary;  or,  that  the  ideas  which  these  words  convey,  can  be 
applicable  to  a  system  which  they  consider,  not  as  an  evil,  but  as 
a  benefit.  We  have  been  told  of  "  localized  "  currency,  of  an 
"insulated"  circulation,  as  a  blessing  far  outweighing  all  the 
other  advantages  arising  from  our  peculiar  local  situation;  as 
something  analogous  to  them;  something  which  was  wanting  to 
complete  the  perfection  of  our  insular  character,  and  which  we 
have  fortunately  stumbled  upon  by  accident;  for  I  think  no  man 
has  been  hardy  enough  to  say,  that  we  could  have  or  ought  to 
have  established  it  by  design.  , 

One  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Baring)  only,  I  Ihink,  has 
gone  back  to  the  origin  of  the  Bank  restriction  in  1797,  and  has 
imputed  to  the  great  man  who  was  the  author  of  it,  an  intention 

Q* 


174  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

of  laying  in  that  measure  the  foundation  of  a  system  of  fraudu- 
lent finance,  and  of  providing  for  an  indefinite  extension  of  the 
public  expenditure  abroad,  by  retrenching  the  just  value  of  the 
payment  of  the  public  creditor  at  home.  This  is  the  imputation 
brought  forward  by  that  honourable  gentleman:  and,  while  I 
fully  acquit  my  right  honourable  friend  (the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer)  of  any  participation  in  this  sentiment,  I  cannot  but 
express  my  regret  that  he  should  not  have  distinctly  disclaimed 
it;  especially  as  he  thought  proper  to  bestow  such  lavish  and  un- 
qualified commendation  upon  the  speech  in  which  it  was  contain- 
ed, and  to  declare,  in  more  large  and  positive  terms  than  I  think 
he  would  upon  reflection  be  disposed  to  confirm,  his  concurrence 
in  the  general  views  and  doctrines  of  that  speech. 

But  acquitting  my  right  honourable  friend  altogether  of  the 
wildest  and  most  extravagant  of  the  tenets  which  have  been  ad- 
vanced by  persons  who  admit  and  admire  a  depreciated  currency, 
I  see  cause  of  sufficient  alarm  in  those  which  he  has  avowed  and 
maintained.  If  the  causes  of  the  present  state  of  our  currency 
be,  as  he  says,  the  unfavourable  balance  of  our  trade,  and  the  ne- 
cessary extent  of  our  war  expenditure;  if,  so  long  as  those  causes 
continue  to  operate,  gold  must,  as  he  contends,  continue  to  flow 
out  of  the  country;  if  nothing  can  contribute  to  recall  it,  except  a 
turn  of  the  exchanges  in  our  favour;  if  that  turn  can  never  be 
produced,  except  either  by  the  previous  turn  of  the  balance  of 
trade  in  our  favour,  or  by  the  reduction  of  our  paper  currency; 
if  the  balance  of  trade,  having  been  turned  against  us  by  the  anti- 
commercial  decrees  of  our  enemy,  must  continue  against  us  till 
those  decrees  are  repealed;  and  if,  of  the  only  other  expedient 
for  correcting  the  exchanges  (viz.,  the  reduction  of  our  paper 
currency,)  my  right  honourable  friend,  while  he  admits  the 
efficacy  to  be  probable,  denies  the  application  to  be  possible; — I 
am  afraid  the  result  of  this  series  of  propositions,  every  one  of 
which  I  collect  from  the  speech  of  my  right  honourable  friend, 
is,  not  only  that  we  have  no  remedy  for  the  present  evil,  but  that 
we  are  likely  to  arrive  at  a  term,  when  all  our  exertions  for  the 
safety  of  the  country  must  cease,  from  our  absolute  inability  to 
maintain  them. 

The  precious  metals  are  necessary  to  feed  and  sustain  our  mili- 
tary operations  abroad.  In  all  former  wars,  what  went  out  in 
bullion  for  military  purposes,  was  replaced  in  the  course  of  trade 
by  fresh  importations.  But  now,  according  to  the  argument  of 
my  right  honourable  friend,  our  commerce  itself  is  but  another 
drain  for  our  bullion,  and  must  continue  so  long  as  the  enemy 
pleases.  The  time,  therefore,  must  come  when  the  stream — al- 
ways flowing,  and  never  replenished — will  be  exhausted;  and 
when,  consequently,  all  the  operations,  whether  of  war  or  of  com- 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  175 

merce,  to  which  it  gave  motion,  will  stand  still.  This,  I  beg  it 
may  be  remembered,  is  not  my  statement:  it  is  that  which  I  col- 
lected from  the  speeches  of  those  who  profess  to  see  nothing  re- 
quisite to  be  set  right  in  the  present  system  of  our  currency.  It 
would  be  a  statement  of  complete  despair,  if  there  were  abso- 
lutely no  check  in  nature  for  the  course  and  progress  of  the  mis- 
chief. One  check,  one  only  check,  there  is — a  check,  as  I  should 
think,  safe  as  well  as  effectual.  But  while  we  are  comforted  with 
hearing  from  my  right  honourable  friend  that  such  a  check  might, 
in  his  opinion  also,  be  effectual,  we  hear  from  him,  at  the  same 
time,  that  it  would  be  absolute  destruction  to  resort  to  it. 

In  addition  to  these  motives  of  policy,  there  are — as  I  have 
heard  this  night,  not  without  astonishment  and  dismay — consid- 
erations of  justice,  which  preclude  any  systematic  reduction  of 
the  amount  of  our  paper  currency.  Such  a  reduction,  it  is  ar- 
gued, would  change  the  value  of  existing  contracts,  and  throw 
into  confusion  every  species  of  pecuniary  transactions,  from  the 
rent  of  the  great  landed  proprietor  down  to  the  wages  of  the  peas- 
ant and  the  artizan.  Good  God!  what  is  this  but  to  say,  that  the 
system  of  irredeemable  paper  currency  must  continue  for  ever? 
What  is  it  but  to  say,  that  the  debts  incurred,  and  the  contracts 
entered  into,  under  the  old  established  legal  standard  of  the  cur- 
rency, including  the  debts  and  contracts  of  the  State  itself,  are 
now  to  be  lopped  and  squared  to  a  new  measure,  set  up  originally 
as  a  temporary  expedient;  and  that  the  sacredness  of  public  faith, 
and  the  obligation  of  legal  engagements,  are  to  be  conformed  to 
the  accidental  and  fluctuating  derangement,  and  not  to  the  ancient 
and  fixed  rule  of  our  currency? 

If  this  be  so,  there  is  indeed  no  hope  that  we  shall  ever  return 
to  our  sound  and  pristine  state.  This  objection  is  of  a  nature  to 
propagate  itself  indefinitely.  Every  day  new  contracts  must  ne- 
cessarily be  made;  and  every  day  successively  (as  it  is  of  the  es- 
sence of  depreciation  to  go  on  increasing  in  degree,)  at  rates  di- 
verging more  and  more  widely  from  the  real  standard  from  which 
we  have  departed.  Every  day,  therefore,  must  interpose  addi- 
tional impediments  to  a  return  to  the  legal  standard.  Never  did 
the  wildest  and  most  hostile  prcphesier  of  ruin  to  the  finances  of 
this  country  venture  to  predict  that  a  time  should  come,  when,  by 
the  avowal  of  Parliament,  nominal  amount  in  paper,  without  ref- 
erence to  any  real  standard  value  in  gold,  would  be  the  payment 
of  the  public  creditor.  But  still  less  could  it  ever  be  apprehend- 
ed that  such  a  system  was  to  be  built  on  the  foundations  of  equity 
and  right — that  it  would  be  considered  as  unjust  to  give  to  the 
paper  creditor,  the  real  value  of  his  contracts  in  gold,  but  just  to 
compel  the  creditor  who  had  trusted   in  gold,  to  receive  for  all 


176  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

time  to  come  the  nominal  amount,  whatever  that  might  come  to 
be,  of  his  contract  in  paper. 

This  proposition  appears  to  me  so  monstrous,  and  shows  so 
plainly  to  what  an  extravagant  and  alarming  length  we  are  liable 
to  be  hurried,  when  once  we  have  lost  sight  of  principle,  and 
given  ourselves  up  to  the  guidance  of  expediency,  that  I  am  sure 
this  House  ought  to  lose  no  time  in  pronouncing  its  opinion  as  to 
the  maxims  by  which,  for  centuries,  the  currency  of  this  country 
has  been  preserved  in  eminent  purity  and  integrity;  and  in  de- 
claring its  determination  to  acknowledge  no  others  in  the  theory 
of  our  money  system,  and  to  look  to  a  practical  return  to  that  sys- 
tem, not  only  as  advantageous  to  the  state,  but  as  indispensable  to 
its  justice  and  its  honour. 

For  these  purposes,  it  is  in  my  opinion  necessary,  in  the  first 
place,  to  enter  a  distinct  record  of  what  is,  in  our  opinion,  the  le- 
gal standard  of  our  currency.  I  know  not  how  this  can  be  done 
with  greater  clearness  and  correctness,  than  by  adopting  the  first* 
seven  of  the  Resolutions  proposed  by  the  honourable  and  learned 
Chairman  of  the  Bullion  Committee. 

To  these  seven  Resolutions  are  opposed,  and  for  them  it  is  in- 
tended to  substitute,  the  first  of  the  Propositions  of  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman  opposite  to  me.t 

I  should  have  no  hesitation  in  affirming  these  first  seven  Reso- 
lutions, if  they  stood  simply  and  positively  on  their  own  merits: 
but  when  I  find  that  we  cannot  get  rid  of  them  without  admitting 
into  their  place  a  Proposition  so  exceptionable  as  the  first  Propo- 
sition of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  and  one  which,  when 
admitted,  will  bring  in  its  train  other  Propositions  still  more  ex- 
ceptionable— one  in  particular  (I  mean  the  third)  absolutely  re- 
pugnant (as  it  seems  to  me)  to  common  sense — I  consider  the  af- 
firmation of  the  original  Resolutions  as  doubly  important,  not  only 
from  what  it  will  establish,  but  for  what  it  will  exclude. 

This  is  not  the  time  to  discuss  the  Propositions  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman;  otherwise  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that 
the  doctrine  of  his  first  Proposition,  which,  referring  every  thing 
relating  to  the  money  of  the  country  exclusively  to  the  preroga- 
tive of  the  Crown,  states,  as  altogether  equal  and  indifferent,  the 
exercise  of  that  prerogative  by  the  will  of  the  Crown  alone,  or 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament — that  this 
doctrine,  if  not  absolutely  false  in  principle  and  in  theory  (a  ques- 
tion which  I  will  not  now  discuss,)  is,  at  least  in  any  practical 
view,  and  to  any  practical  purpose,  unsound:  it  is  incomplete,  de- 
lusive and  dangerous;  it  states  the  prerogative,  indeed,  but  it  does 
not  state  it  as  defined  and  regulated  by  law.     This,  however,  is  a 

*  See  Res.  1  to  7,  of  Mr.  Horner.        t  See  Res.  1,  of  Mr.  Vansittart. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  177 

part  only  of  his  objections  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman's 
Propositions.  There  are  others  which  I  shall  reserve  till  the  mo- 
ment shall  arrive,  when  it  becomes  itself  the  subject  of  substan- 
tive discussion.  What  I  have  now  said,  in  my  opinion,  is  sufficient 
to  disqualify  it  as  a  subtitute  for  the  precise  and  unimpeachable  defi- 
nition of  the  monetary  system  of  this  country  as  established  by  the 
joint  authority  of  the  Crown  and  Parliament,  which  is  contained 
in  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman's  first  seven  Resolutions. 

If  I  do  not  go  at  large  into  those  Resolutions  for  the  purpose 
of  explaining  and  defending  the  vote  which  I  shall  give  in  favour 
of  them,  it  is  because,  in  the  whole  course  of  this  debate,  I  have 
not  heard  a  single  objection  urged  against  them.  It  is  singular 
that  the  whole  skill  of  his  antagonists  should  have  been  exhausted, 
not  in  attacking,  but  in  evading  his  statement;  that,  of  a  chain  of 
reasoning,  which,  if  it  could  be  loosened  in  a  single  link,  would, 
I  admit,  fall  to  pieces,  not  a  single  link  has  been  attempted  to  be 
loosened.  It  remains  entire  and  unbroken,  and  connects  undis- 
puted premises  with  an  inevitable  conclusion. 

The  eighth  and  ninth  Resolutions*  of  the  honourable  and  learn- 
ed  gentlemen  contain  truisms  which  no  man  disputes;  and  which 
the  right  honourable  gentleman,  in  proposing  to  substitute  for 
them  his  second  Proposition,  only  makes  less  completely  true 
by  the  omission  of  one  essential  circumstance.  The  eighth  Reso- 
lution states,  that  the  notes  of  the  Bank  of  England  are  stipulations 
to  pay  on  demand.  The  right  honourable  gentleman's  second 
Proposition  omits  the  words,  on  demand.  Why  this  omission  ? 
It  can  hardly  be  accidental;  it  can  hardly  be  without  some  mean- 
ing: and  yet  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  so  far  as  I  have 
heard,  in  the  speech  with  which  he  introduced  his  Propositions, 
did  not  offer  any  thing  to  account  for  so  singular  an  alteration.  Is 
it  possible  that  he  can  mean  to  say,  that  bank  notes  are  not  stipu- 
lations to  pay  on  demand?  It  is  perfectly  true  that  the  restriction 
law  of  1797  suspends  the  fulfilment  of  this  stipulation,  and  pro- 
tects the  Bank  against  the  consequences  of  a  refusal  to  fulfil  it: 
but  does  not  the  right  honourable  gentleman  see  the  danger  of 
confounding  two  things  so  different  as  the  temporary  suspension 
of  the  effect  of  an  obligation,  and  the  actual  annulment  of  the  ob- 
ligation itself?  I  am  almost  sure  that  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man must,  upon  reflection,  be  aware  of  the  perilous  tendency  of 
such  a  confusion.  But,  in  the  mean  time,  forasmuch  as  a  correct 
and  complete  definition  is  pit  friable  to  one  which  is  undeniably 
and  dangerously  defective,  I  cannot  hesitate  to  vote  for  the  eighth 
and  ninth  of  the  original  Resolutions,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman's  most  unnecessary  and  most  suspicious 
amendment,  t 

*  See  Res.  8  and  9  of  Mr.  Homer .       +  See  2d  Res.  of  Mr.  Vansittart. 
'J.') 


178  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

The  tenth*  of  the  original  Resolutions  contains  a  clear,  indis- 
putable, and  (as  I  have  before  described  it)  inevitable  conclusion, 
from  the  state  of  the  law,  as  accurately  laid  down  in  the  preceding 
Resolutions,  coupled  with  the  notorious  and  undisputed  fact  of 
tbe  high  price  of  bullion.  The  truth  of  the  averment  contained  in 
this  Resolution  is  not  directly  denied.  The  dispute  is  only  whether 
that  which  is  admitted  to  be  true  is  not  nevertheless  unfit  to  be 
recorded.  It  is  not  denied  that  the  exchangeable  value  of  bank 
notes  is  at  this  moment  considerably  less  than  their  denominative 
value,  if  those  values  respectively  be  measured  in  gold  or  silver; 
but  it  is  disputed  whether  gold  or  silver  be  the  fit  measure  of  the 
value  of  bank  notes.  This  is  in  effect  the  whole  of  the  argument, 
not  upon  this  Resolution  only,  but  upon  the  whole  in  dispute.  It 
is  the  single  point  on  which  all  our  discussions  turn. 

I  have  already  discussed  this  point  so  much  at  length,  and  have 
so  nearly  (as  I  am  afraid)  exhausted  the  patient  indulgence  of  the 
Committee,  that  I  do  not  think  myself  at  liberty  here  to  recapit- 
ulate the  arguments  upon  it.  I  will  content  myself  with  asking 
of  those  who  maintain  a  contrary  opinion,  and  particularly  of  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Vansittart,)  "  If  the  precious 
metals,  and  particularly  that  one  which  is  the  legal  standard  of  the 
currency  of  the  country,  be  not  the  proper  measure  of  the  value 
of  that  currency,  what  is?"  The  right  honourable  gentleman  has 
his  answer  ready  in  his  third  Proposition:  and  a  most  curious 
one  it  is.t  "Public  estimation"  is,  according  to  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman,  the  true  standard  measure  of  the  value  of  a 
currency;  and  the  common  measure  of  the  two  parts  of  a  currency 
as  compared  with  each  other.  If  I  felt  upon  this  question  with 
the  spirit  of  a  partisan — if  I  had  been  a  member  of  the  Bullion 
Committee,  and  were  responsible  for  their  Report,  I  should  say, 
that  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  third  Proposition  was  abso- 
lutely beyond  my  hopes.  Speaking  impartially,  I  must  say,  that 
if  I  had  seen  this  third  Proposition  any  where  but  where  it  is, 
fairly  printed  and  numbered  in  the  right  honourable  gentleman's 
series,  I  should  have  thought  it  an  invention  of  his  antagonists, 
calculated  to  place  the  fallacy  of  his  doctrine  in  the  most  glaring 
and  ridiculous  point  of  view,  but  carrying  the  license  of  exagge- 
ration rather  beyond  pardonable  limits,  and  defeating  its  purpose, 
by  the  grossness  of  the  caricature.  I  would  have  taken  no  other 
person's  word  than  the  right,  honourable  gentleman's  own,  that  he, 
a  man  of  science,  a  man  of  practical  knowledge  and  experience, 
was  the  author  of  this  Proposition. 

This  Proposition,  however,  is  not  now  regularly  before  us.  I 
think  it  absolutely  incredible  that  it  should  ever  be  brought  be- 

*  See  Res.  10,  of  Mr.  Horner.        t  See  3d  Res.  of  Mr.  Vansittart. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  179 

fore  us  for  our  direct  consideration  and  adoption.  It  is  now  only 
to  be  viewed  as  the  contrast  and  contradiction  of  the  tenth  Reso- 
lution of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman;  as  intended  to 
divert  us  by  the  prospect  of  something  better  from  sanctioning 
that  Resolution.  And  how  does  it  effect  that  purpose  ?  By  show- 
ing us  that,  if  we  will  let  that  Resolution  alone,  and  not  unsettle 
the  public  mind  by  resolving  any  thing  at  all  about  the  measure- 
ment of  the  value  of  bank  notes,  there  is  already  a  sufficient  rule 
for  the  just  estimation  of  their  value.  What  is  that  rule?  "Public 
estimation."  Good.  And  who  is  the  party  whose  opinion  is  to 
be  settled?  The  public.  To  whom  do  they  appeal?  To  the 
House  of  Commons.  The  public  opinion  is  divided;  the  public 
appeal  to  the  House  of  Commons  for  judgment;  and  the  House 
of  Commons,  after  gravely  hearing  the  arguments  on  both  sides, 
delivers,  not  its  own  decision  of  the  question  in  dispute,  but  a 
decree  that  the  opinion  of  the  public  has  already  decided  it. 

Is  this  (I  do  not  say)  wise,  judicious,  satisfactory?  I  ask  if  it 
be  intelligible;  if  it  be  not  a  mockery  of  the  public;  a  degrada- 
tion of  our  own  character,  and  an  abdication  of  our  own  func- 
tions ? 

Again  I  say,  I  cannot,  will  not  believe,  that  we  shall  ever  be 
seriously  called  upon  to  vote  this  third  Proposition. 

But  even  so,  we  must  not  leave  this  main  point  of  inquiry  un- 
determined, nor  our  determination  upon  it  unrecorded.  The 
tenth  of  the  original  Resolutions  contains  the  just  and  indisputa- 
ble inference  from  the  known  law  and  the  acknowledged  facts  of 
the  case.  Till  the  indentures  of  the  Mint  be  altered,  and  the 
statutes  which  sanction  them  repealed,  definite  weight  of  precious 
metal  constitutes  the  true  standard  of  our  currency.  By  that 
standard,  while  it  subsists  in  law,  every  species  of  our  currency 
must  be  measured.  Measured  by  that  standard,  bank  notes  have 
not  at  present  a  value  equal  to  their  denomination.  Unless  the 
premises  can  be  denied,  it  is  vain  to  dispute  the  conclusion.  And 
this  conclusion,  if  it  be  true,  it  is  our  bounden  duty  solemnly  to 
record. 

These  ten  Resolutions,  therefore,  expound  the  law  of  our  cur- 
rency; and  establish  the  fact  of  the  actual  depreciation  of  that 
part  of  it  which  consists  in  paper. 

Here  I  confess  I  should  be  contented  to  leave  the  matter:  con- 
ceiving that  the  remedy  to  be  applied  to  the  evil  may  best  be 
proposed  by  the  Executive  Government;  and  that  the  causes  of 
it,  though  to  my  mind  obvious  and  manifest,  yet  are  not  as  capa- 
ble of  certain  and  demonstrative  proof,  as  the  fact  of  its  existence. 
I  have  myself  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  the  honourable  and 
learned   gentleman's*  eleventh  Resolution.     But  I  am   not  pre- 

*See  Res.  11,  of  Mr.  Horner. 


180  ON  THE  REPORT'  OF 

pared  to  affirm  it  by  my  vote.  I  think  that,  unlike,  in  this  res- 
pect, to  those  which  have  preceded  it,  it  asserts  more  than  it 
proves;  and  I  think  it  implies  a  degree  of  blame  upon  the  Bank, 
which  I  am  not  ready  to  impute  to  that  body. 

When  it  is  stated  that  the  depreciation  of  bank  notes  is  owing 
to  an  excessive  issue,  and  that  the  excessive  issue  has  been  pro- 
duced by  a  want  of  check  and  control,  it  is  difficult  not  to  con- 
strue such  a  statement  as  imputing  to  the  Bank  a  heavy  responsi- 
bility both  for  the  excess  of  their  issues,  and  for  a  neglect  of  those 
precautions  by  which  such  excess  might  have  been  prevented. 
But  the  check  and  control  which  are  said  to  have  been  wanting, 
may  have  been,  and  in  point  of  fact  were,  in  part  at  least,  extrin- 
sic to  the  Bank.  The  main  check  was  the  payment  of  their 
notes  in  specie  upon  demand:  for  the  discontinuance  of  this 
check  the  Bank  is  obviously  not  responsible.  If  indeed  I  could 
agree  with  my  right  honourable  friend  (the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer)  in  considering  the  question  of  excess  as  independent 
of  that  of  depreciation,  and  as  capable  of  being  satisfactorily 
proved  or  disproved,  otherwise  than  through  the  depreciation,  I 
could  not  affirm  the  fact  of  an  excessive  issue  without  imputing 
to  the  Bank  the  blame  of  having  intentionally  produced  that  ex- 
cess. But  the  check  of  cash  payments  once  removed — which 
was,  as  I  apprehended,  the  only  infallible  guard  against  excess,  I 
know  of  no  test  by  which  the  Bank  could  ascertain  the  fact  that 
their  issues  had  become  excessive,  except  by  that  of  their  paper 
having  become  depreciated.  The  degree  and  the  long  continuance 
of  the  unfavourableness  of  the  exchange  strongly  indicate — and 
the  high  price  of  bullion  incontrovertably  proves — the  deprecia- 
tion; the  depreciation  proves  the  excess.  But  such  being  the  order 
of  the  demonstration,  it  is  not  till  the  fact  of  depreciation  was  estab- 
lished that  I  could  consider  that  of  an  excessive  issue  as  proved:  and 
it  would  not  be  until  such  excess  should  have  been  persevered  in 
against  better  knowledge,  that  I  should  think  it  just  to  animad- 
vert upon  the  conduct  of  the  Bank  in  the  sense  of  this  Resolution. 

Besides,  I  confess  I  think  it  unnecessary.  I  cannot  help  being 
satisfied,  that  without  any  specific  resolution  on  the  subject  of 
excess,  the  effect  of  this  debate,  should  the  first  ten  Resolutions 
be  adopted — nay,  I  cannot  help  hoping  that  the  effect  of  the  de- 
bate itself — will  be  to  correct  that  evil. 

For  this  purpose,  however,  it  is  undoubtedly  desirable,  that 
the  Bank  should  be  disabused  of  some  notions  which  it  appears 
to  entertain,  and  of  others  which  have  been  suggested  in  this  de- 
bate; at  least  if  those  notions  are,  as  they  appear  to  my  under- 
standing, entirely  erroneous.  "  It  is  impossible  that  there  should 
be  an  excess  in  the  issue  of  bank  notes,"  say  the  Bank,  because 
those  notes  are  never  issued  except  upon  solid  security — the  se- 


THE  BULLION   COMMITTEE.  181 

curity  of  real  mercantile  transactions."  Surely  it  cannot  be  ne- 
cessary to  show  that,  although  this  may  be  an  adequate  precaution 
against  loss  to  the  Bank,  it  is  none  against  an  excessive  issue.  It 
surely  cannot  be  contended,  that  every  mercantile  transaction, 
that  is  to  say,  every  object  of  commerce,  may  be  represented 
to  its  full  value  in  the  paper  currency  of  the  country — and  re- 
presented not  once  only,  but  as  often  as  it  changes  hands — with- 
out any  inconvenient  augmentation  of  the  mass  of  that  currency. 
A.  sells  to  B.  a  bale  of  cloth,  or  a  hogshead  of  sugar,  and  receives 
from  B.  a  bill  of  exchange  payable  in  two  months.  Here  is  a 
bill  founded  upon  a  real  mercantile  transaction.  A.  carries  B.'s 
bill  to  the  Bank  for  discount;  and  a  bank  note  to  the  amount  of 
the  bill  is  sent  into  circulation.  Next  day  B.  transfers  his  goods 
to  C,  and  receives  from  C.  a  similar  bill  of  exchange.  Here  is 
another  bill  founded  on  a  real  mercantile  transaction.  Like  the 
former,  it  is  carried  to  the  Bank;  and,  like  it,  is  the  cause  of  add- 
ing a  bank  note  of  the  same  amount  to  the  circulation.  Is  it  not 
plain  that  this  transaction  may  be  almost  indefinitely  repeated, 
till  the  bale  of  cloth  or  the  hogshead  of  sugar  is  represented  a 
hundred  fold  in  the  currency  of  the  country  ?  The  security  of 
the  Bank  is  not  in  the  rule  of  its  issue,  but  in  the  solvency  of  the 
several  parties.  This  may  guard  their  notes  against  depreciation 
from  discredit;  but  what  tendency  has  it  to  secure  them  from  de- 
preciation by  excess? 

"  It  is  impossible,"  others  have  said,  "  that  there  should  be  an 
excess,  when  the  mass  of  property  to  be  circulated  in  this  coun- 
try— the  rents  of  land,  the  profits  of  trade,  the  expenditure  of 
the  state,  and  the  receipt  of  the  revenue — are  grown  and  daily 
growing  to  an  amount  so  much  beyond  all  former  experience." 
"The  amount  of  the  circulating  medium,"  it  is  said,  "so  far  from 
having  increased  in  a  ratio  equal  to  that  of  these  several  enor- 
mous demands  for  its  employment,  bears  an  infinitely  smaller 
proportion  to  those  demands  than  it  has  done  at  former  periods 
of  our  history.  It  cannot  therefore  be  in  excess."  This  propo- 
sition has  been  much  dwelt  upon  by  many  gentlemen  who  have 
spoken  in  this  debate;  and  the  difficulty  of  dealing  with  it  lies  in 
this — that  on  neither  side  of  the  comparison  are  what  it  assumes 
as  data,  fixed  and  certain;  that,  on  the  one  side,  the  total  amount 
of  the  currency  of  the  country,  including  paper  of  all  kinds,  is 
necessarily  unknown;  and  on  the  other  side,  who  is  there  (as  I 
have  before  had  occasion  to  ask)  that  shall  pretend  to  estimate 
with  accuracy  the  aggregate  amount  of  all  the  private  transactions 
of  the  country?  The  peremptory  inference  that  excess  is  impos- 
sible, is  surely  not  to  be  drawn  with  confidence  from  premises 
necessarily  conjectural. 

In  one  sense  indeed,  which,  however,  I  can  hardly  suppose  to 

R 


182  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

be  intended,  it  may  be  true  that  there  never  can  be  any  such  thing 
as  excess  or  superabundance  of  currency  in  a  country:  it  cannot 
be  superabundant,  if  you  do  not  care  for  its  depreciation.  Sup- 
pose for  instance,  ten  millions  sufficient  to  carry  on  all  the  trans- 
actions of  the  country — fabricate  fifteen  millions  of  paper  instead 
of  ten,  the  whole  fifteen  will  circulate: — the  only  consequence 
will  be,  that  the  commodities  for  which  it  is  exchanged  will  rise 
fifty  per  cent,  in  their  nominal  price.  Make  those  fifteen  millions 
twenty;  the  addition  will  in  like  manner  be  absorbed  into  the  en- 
hanced prices  of  commodities.  Excess  of  currency  cannot  be 
proved  to  the  conviction  of  those  who  will  not  admit  depreciation 
to  be  the  proof  of  it. 

But  again,  if  we  were  to  allow  the  accuracy  and  certainty  of 
all  the  data  that  are  assumed  by  those  persons  who  have  relied  on 
this  argument;  to  allow  whatever  amount  they  please  for  the  pe- 
cuniary transactions  of  the  country,  public  and  private;  to  allow 
them  to  fix  where  they  please,  the  amount  of  the  currency;  and 
to  assume  that  its  actual  amount  at  the  present  moment,  consist- 
ing, as  it  does,  almost  exclusively  of  paper,  is  not  greater — is  even 
less — than  when  it  consisted  in  part,  and  in  great  part,  of  gold; — 
still  it  would  remain  for  them,  before  they  could  infer  the  impos- 
sibility of  excess,  to  show,  that  there  was  no  improved  mode  of 
carrying  on  the  transactions  of  the  country,  which  facilitated  and 
quickened  all  pecuniary  transfers,  and  made  a  less  quantity  of  cur- 
rency perform  what  had  required  a  greater  amount  before; — it 
would  remain  for  them  to  show  that  the  very  substitution  of  paper 
for  gold  did  not  greatly  contribute  to  this  facility;  that  a  bank 
note  of  one  hundred  pounds  would  not  perform  in  a  given  space 
of  time  an  infinitely  greater  number  of  operations  in  exchange  of 
commodities,  than  an  equal  sum  in  the  more  bulky  and  less  trans- 
ferable shape  of  guineas. 

That  these  or  any  other  arguments  can  disprove  the  possibility 
of  excess,  I  utterly  deny — and  I  trust  that  the  Bank  has,  by  this 
time,  ceased  to  believe.  On  the  other  hand,  that  the  existence  of 
excess  can  be  proved  by  the  converse  of  these  arguments,  or  that 
any  conclusive  inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  positive  amount 
of  paper  in  circulation,  or  from  the  comparison  of  that  amount, 
either  with  the  amount  of  currency  in  circulation  at  any  former 
time,  or  with  that  of  the  pecuniary  transactions,  revenue  and  ex- 
penditure of  the  country — I  do  not  pretend. 

The  currency  might  be  increased  or  diminished  in  any  assigna- 
ble degree,  without  affording  any  inference  fairly  conclusive  upon 
the  point  in  question,  unless  that  diminution  or  increase  were  ac- 
companied by  a  variation  of  its  value.  Whether  that  value  has 
or  has  not  varied,  is  therefore  the  sole  question.  It  is  the  point 
from  which  we  set  out,  and  that  to  which  we  must  return.     And 


THE  BULLION   COMMITTEE.  183 

as  it  is  one  which  is  capable  of  being  either  proved  or  disproved 
directly,  they  who  argue  about  it  analogically,  instead  of  directly, 
afford  a  strong  indication  of  their  own  distrust  in  the  soundness 
of  their  reasoning. 

That  excessive  issue  has  therefore  been  the  cause  of  deprecia- 
tion, I  entertain  no  doubt.  And  although,  for  the  reasons  which 
I  have  given,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  declare  this  fact  in  a 
distinct  Resolution,  I  trust  that  the  statement  of  principles  in 
those  Resolutions  which  precede,  and  those  which  follow,  is  suffi- 
cient to  answer  every  practical  purpose  of  such  a  declaration. 

The  twelfth  Resolution  simply  records  a  fact,  about  which  there 
is  no  dispute — the  unfavourable  state  of  the  exchanges. 

The  thirteenth  Resolution  attributes  this  unfavourable  state  of 
the  exchanges,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  depreciation  of  the  rela- 
tive value  of  the  currency  of  this  country,  as  compared  with  that 
of  other  countries;  without  however  excluding  the  operation  of 
other  causes. 

The  fourteenth*  declares  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Bank,  under 
the  present  circumstances,  to  take  the  state  of  foreign  exchanges, 
as  well  as  the  price  of  bullion,  into  their  view,  in  regulating  the 
amount  of  their  issues. 

The  twelfth  Resolution  requires  no  comment. 

To  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth,  however  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  opposite  to  me  (Mr.  Vansittart)  may  object,  my  right 
honourable  friend  (the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer)  must  agree. 
He  must  agree,  at  least,  unless  he  thinks  either  that  the  deprecia- 
tion of  our  paper  currency  is  a  good  thing  in  itself;  or  that,  being 
an  evil,  it  is  productive  of  good  by  which  it  is  more  than  coun- 
terbalanced. He  must  agree  to  these  Resolutions:  for  he  admits 
that  the  reduction  of  the  amount  of  Bank  paper  would  have  a  ten- 
dency to  set  right  the  exchanges.  The  state  of  the  exchanges, 
therefore,  is  not,  in  his  opinion,  as  it  is  in  that  of  others,  wholly 
independent  of  the  amount  of  the  Bank  issues,  and  unaffected  by 
it.  If  the  exchanges  are  affected  by  the  issues  of  the  Bank,  and 
affect  in  their  turn,  as  they  undoubtedly  do,  and  as  by  some  they 
are  thought  to  do  exclusively,  the  price  of  gold,  and  the  general 
commercial  interests  of  the  country,  the  state  of  the  exchanges 
cannot  be  altogether  a  matter  of  indifference  in  any  question  re- 
specting the  amount  to  which  the  Bank  issues  should  be  carried. 
But  the  Bank  have  told  us  distinctly,  that  they  do  not  advert  to  the 
exchanges  with  a  view  to  regulate  their  issues.  Their  reason  for 
not  doing  so,  they  state  to  be,  that  they  do  not  consider  the 
amount  of  their  issues,  and  the  state  of  the  exchanges,  as  having 
any  connexion,  or  bearing  in  any  degree  upon  each  other.     In 

*  See  Res.  12,  13,  and  14,  of  Mr.  Horner. 


184  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

this  opinion,  my  right  honourable  friend  (the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer)  thinks,  as  I  think,  that  the  Bank  is  wrong.  He  must, 
therefore,  naturally  agree  with  me  in  the  necessity  and  expediency 
of  correcting  their  error  on  this  subject.  Consequently,  I  can 
anticipate  no  objection  on  his  part  to  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  and 
fourteenth  Resolutions. 

The  fifteenth*  Resolution  cannot  be  opposed  by  any  man,  who 
is  not  prepared  to  go  the  full  length  of  the  argument,  that  excess 
of  paper  currency  is  a  thing  of  itself  physically  impossible,  or 
who  is  not  desirous  of  converting  the  temporary  suspension  of 
cash  payments  into  a  permanent  system.  With  these  exceptions, 
every  man  must  concur  in  the  opinion,  that  the  convertibility  upon 
demand  of  paper  into  coin,  is  the  only  permanent  and  certain  se- 
curity against  excess  in  the  issue  of  paper;  and  must  be  anxious 
that  this  principle,  having  been  called  in  question,  should  be 
unequivocally  affirmed.  More  especially  must  those  persons  be 
anxious  for  such  an  affirmation,  who  are  prepared  to  vote  for  the 
last  but  one  of  the  propositions  of  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man opposite  to  me  (Mr.  Vansittart;)  in  which  the  expediency 
of  returning  to  cash  payments  as  quickly  as  possible,  is  so  clearly 
and  properly  recognized.  I  have  already  declared  that  I  am  one 
of  those  who  concur  in  that  proposition;  and  who  would  not  ob- 
ject to  voting,  at  the  same  time,  for  the  concluding  proposition 
of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  which  declares  the  inexpedi- 
ency of  reverting  to  cash  payments  at  the  present  moment:  but 
to  those  propositions,  the  Resolutions  of  the  honourable  and 
learned  gentleman  (Mr.  Horner,)  which  I  have  already  discussed, 
and  especially  this  fifteenth  Resolution,  appear  to  me  to  form  the 
best  and  most  natural  introduction. 

I  now  come  to  the  concluding  Resolution  of  the  honourable 
and  learned  gentleman,!  and  that  with  respect  to  which  alone  I 
differ  from  him  to  the  extent  of  being  compelled  to  vote  against 
it.  Agreeing  with  him  as  I  do  in  all  the  main  principles  of  his 
argument;  admitting,  as  I  do,  that  the  evil  which  he  has  de- 
nounced, exists,  and  that  he  and  his  fellow-labourers  have  traced 
it  to  its  source;  admitting  also  that  it  requires  remedy,  I  am  cer- 
tainly bound  to  explain  why  I  cannot  go  along  with  him  in  his 
practical  conclusion:  and  I  will  endeavour  to  explain  myself 
upon  this  point,  I  hope,  to  his  satisfaction. 

The  object  of  this  Resolution  is  to  change  the  term  of  the  re- 
striction upon  cash  payments  at  the  Bank;  and  to  ascertain, 
though  not  necessarily  to  shorten,  the  period  of  its  duration. 

I  have  already  said,  that,  throughout  the  whole  of  this  busi- 
ness, I  consider  the  Bank  as  entirely  passive.     The  restriction 

*See  the  15th  Resolution  of  Mr.  Horner.        fSee  Res.  16,  of  Mr.  Horner. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  185 

was  originally  imposed  upon  them  by  Parliament.  By  Parlia- 
ment it  was  renewed  more  than  once  during  the  continuance  of 
the  former  war,  after  the  Bank  had  declared  its  readiness  to  pay 
in  cash; — by  Parliament  it  was  re-enacted  at  the  recommence- 
ment of  the  war; — and  with  a  policy,  which  I  deeply  regret,  but 
for  which  the  Bank  is  no  way  answerable,  was  made  commensu- 
rate in  its  continuance  with  the  continuance  of  the  war.  If,  there- 
fore, the  error  has  prevailed  of  considering  this  as  a  war  measure, 
it  is  not  to  the  Bank,  but  to  the  Parliament,  that  this  error  ought 
to  be  imputed.  The  Bank  was  taught  by  Parliament  so  to  con- 
sider the  subject;  and  it  is  hard  to  visit  upon  the  Bank  the  conse- 
quences of  our  own  error. 

Nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than  that,  considering  its  own 
interests  as  a  commercial  corporation,  the  Bank  may  have  thought 
itself  not  only  warranted,  but  obliged  to  adopt  a  different  course 
of  conduct,  with  a  view  to  prepare  for  the  resumption  of  cash 
payments  at  a  period  of  six  months  after  a  definite  treaty  of  peace, 
from  that  which  they  would  have  adopted  with  a  view  to  a  dif- 
ferent period,  definite  in  point  of  time,  but  independent  of  the 
consideration  of  peace  or  war.  It  is  possible  that,  taking  the 
colour  of  their  opinions  from  Parliament,  and  considering  the 
war  as  the  cause  of  restriction,  and  peace,  whenever  it  should  be 
made,  as  certain  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  it,  they  may  have 
thought  that  the  six  months  which  are  to  intervene  between  the 
conclusion  of  the  definite  treaty  and  the  call  upon  them  for  cash, 
would  be  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  replenish  their  coffers; 
however  they  might  have  exhausted  them  in  the  mean  time,  by 
a  liberal  assistance  to  Government,  and  however  they  might  have 
omitted  to  replace  their  issues  by  the  purchase  of  gold  in  the 
market.  I  do  not  say  that  such  has  been  the  conduct  of  the 
Bank:  I  say,  that  if  such  has  been  their  conduct,  it  is  perfectly 
natural  and  excusable.  We  know,  indeed,  in  point  of  fact,  that 
they  have  omitted  to  purchase  bullion.  I  regret  this — because  I 
think  that  continued  purchases,  on  their  part,  would  have  tended 
to  keep  their  notes  and  the  precious  metals  more  nearly  on  a  par. 
But  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  policy  on  which  the  Bank 
conducts  its  own  private  concerns;  we  have  no  right  to  examine 
into  the  state  of  its  coffers;  and  it  would  be  highly  improper  and 
mischievous  to  do  so.  We  had  a  right  to  require,  before  the 
Bank  restriction,  payment  of  their  notes  in  specie  on  demand: 
that  right  we.  have  voluntarily  forgone  for  purposes,  and  with  a 
view  to  interests,  not  of  the  Bank,  but  of  our  own;  and  all  that 
we  have  now  strictly  a  right  to  require  of  the  Bank  is,  that  it 
should  be  ready  to  resume  its  cash  payments  at  the  period  which 
Parliament  has  fixed  for  that  resumption. 

It  would,  therefore,  in  my  opinion,  be  unjust  to  shorten,  by 
26  i{- 


ISti  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

any  compulsory  measure,  the  duration,  or  to  change  the  nature  of 
the  term  for  which  the  restriction  has  been  enacted. 

But  I  also  think  the  change  would  be  impolitic,  as  well  as  un- 
just. I  am  for  adhering  to  our  bargain;  although  I  do  not  think 
it  a  very  wise  one.  I  am  afraid,  that  if  we  propose  to  alter  it 
for  our  own  convenience,  we  should  not  only  not  obtain  our  ob- 
ject, but  by  throwing  loose  the  terms  of  the  existing  agreement, 
should  risk  the  non-performance  of  that  agreement  when  the  pe- 
riod for  exacting  it  arrives. 

That  our  first  object  might  be  defeated  by  the  Bank — if  we 
could  suppose  that  the  Directors  of  the  Bank  (which,  however,  I 
am  very  far  from  believing)  were  capable  of  defeating  it  by  de- 
sign,— is  sufficiently  obvious.  But  even  innocently,  and  with  the 
sincerest  desire  to  conform  themselves  to  the  express  wish  of  Par- 
liament, the  Bank  Directors,  suddenly  driven  out  of  the  course 
which  they  may  have  adopted  in  reliance  upon  the  former  act, 
by  this  new  and  unlooked-for  interposition,  might,  by  the  very 
measures  which  that  interposition  rendered  necessary,  create  a 
state  of  things  which  would  oblige  us  hastily  to  recall  it. 

We  read  in  the  Report  of  the  Bullion  Committee  of  the  alarm- 
ing effects  of  a  too  sudden  and  violent  contraction  of  the  Bank 
issues.  We  feel  at  the  present  moment  the  ill  effect  of  an  uncon- 
trolled augmentation  of  them.  The  result  of  the  present  discus- 
sion must  and  will  be  (I  cannot  doubt  but  it  will)  to  check  the 
latter  evil:  but  I  am  afraid,  that,  by  fixing  peremptorily  a  new 
period  for  opening  the  cash  coffers  of  the  Bank,  we  should  incur 
a  danger  of  the  former  kind  to  an  extent  of  which  the  conse- 
quences cannot  be  foreseen.  Of  these  consequences,  that  which 
I  most  apprehend,  which  I  think  the  most  certain,  and  consider 
as  the  most  to  be  deprecated,  would  be  that,  the  act  under  which 
the  restriction  is  now  limited  being  repealed,  the  new  limitation 
would  be  found  impracticable;  and  that  we  should  thus  be  left 
without  the  prospect  of  any  definite  period  for  the  restoration  of 
the  sound  and  natural  state  of  our  currency. 

In  the  present  state  of  this  discussion,  I  shall  be  well  contented 
if  we  come  out  of  the  Committee  with  the  principles  of  our 
money  system  unequivocally  recognised,  and  with  the  prospect 
of  our  return  to  the  practice  of  them  only  not  impaired.  Of  that 
issue  I  will  not  despair.  For  the  rest,  I  am  willing  to  leave  to 
the  good  sense  and  good  intentions  of  the  Bank,  and  to  the  sug- 
gestions of  the  executive  government,  that  gradual  retrenchment 
of  the  excess  of  our  paper  currency,  which  can  alone  correct 
those  evils,  the  existence  of  which  we  all  agree  in  acknowledg- 
ing. I  impute  nothing  to  the  Bank  for  whatever  has  taken  place 
amiss;  I  rely  confidently  on  their  disposition  to  amend  it.  As 
to  the  Government,  I  am  quite  sure,  that  whatever  may  be  the 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  187 

present  feelings  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  no  obstinate  at- 
tachment to  preconceived  opinions  will  prevent  him  from  look- 
ing at  the  whole  subject  with  impartiality,  or  from  setting  him- 
self, with  that  solicitude  which  its  importance  demands,  to  review 
and  to  re-consider  all  the  facts  and  arguments  connected  with  it, 
and  to  adapt  his  conduct  (his  counsel,  rather — for  it  is  in  that 
way  alone  that  he  can  properly  influence  the  Bank)  to  whatever 
may,  after  full  deliberation,  be  his  own  final  and  sincere  convic- 
tion. I  think  that,  after  full  deliberation,  he  cannot  be  convinced 
but  aright. 

If  I  am  asked  "  What,  will  you  then  be  satisfied,  after  all, 
with  doing  nothing? — with  leaving  things  as  they  are?"  I  an- 
swer— We  the  House  of  Commons  do  perhaps  as  much  as  at  this 
moment  we  can  do;  we  do  something  practical,  something  essen- 
tially useful  and  important,  if  we  strengthen,  by  a  declaration  of 
our  opinion,  the  foundations  of  the  money  system  of  the  country; 
if  we  re-establish  the  credit  of  the  true  standard  of  our  currency, 
at  a  moment  when  it  is  attempted  to  be  brought  into  doubt  and 
disrepute. 

The  Bullion  Committee  will  not  have  sat  in  vain,  if  its  report 
shall  have  recalled  the  attention  of  Parliament  to  that  system,  and 
that  standard,  which  it  was  never  the  intention  of  Parliament  to 
abandon.  Nor  will  this  House  have  mis-spent  its  time,  if,  at  the 
conclusion  of  this  long  and  anxious  investigation,  it  shall  give  its 
sanction  to  the  principles  of  the  Bullion  Committee,  so  far  as  the 
system  of  our  money  and  the  standard  of  our  currency  are  con- 
cerned, even  although  it  may  withhold  that  sanction  from  the 
practical  measure  which  the  report  of  the  Committee  recom- 
mends. 

The  Committee  then  divided  on  the  first  of  Mr.  Horner's  Resolutions- 
Ayes        75 

Noes 151 

Majority  against  it     -        -        76 
The  fourteen  next  resolutions  were  then  put  and  negatived  without  a  divi* 
sion;  and  on  the  sixteenth  resolution  the  Committee  again  divided: — 

Ayes 45 

Noes 180 

Majority  against  it     -        -      135 


188 

BULLION  COMMITTEE. 

MAY  13th,  1811. 

Mr.  Vansittart  moved  the  following  Resolutions: — 

First. — Resolved,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  right  of 
establishing  and  regulating  the  legal  money  of  this  Kingdom,  hath  at  all  times 
been  a  royal  prerogative,  vested  in  the  Sovereigns  thereof,  who  have  from  time 
to  time  exercised  the  same,  as  they  have  seen  fit,  in  changing  such  legal  money, 
or  altering  and  varying  the  value,  and  enforcing  or  restraining  the  circulation 
thereof,  by  proclamation,  or  in  concurrence  with  the  estates  of  the  realm,  by 
Act  of  Parliament:  and  that  such  legal  money  cannot  lawfully  be  defaced, 
melted  down,  or  exported. 

Second. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Committee,  that  the  promissory  notes 
of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Bank  of  England,  are  engagements  to 
pay  certain  sums  of  money,  in  the  legal  coin  of  this  kingdom;  and  that,  for 
more  than  a  century  past,  the  said  Governor  and  Company  were  at  all  times 
ready  to  discharge  such  promissory  notes  in  legal  coin  of  the  realm,  until  re- 
strained from  so  doing  on  the  25th  February,  1797,  by  an  order  of  council  con- 
firmed by  Act  of  Parliament. 

Third. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  promissory  notes 
of  the  Company  have  hitherto  been,  and  are  at  this  time,  held  in  public  esti- 
mation to  be  equivalent  to  the  legal  coin  of  the  realm,  and  generally  accepted 
as  such  in  all  pecuniary  transactions  to  which  such  coin  is  lawfully  applicable. 

Fourth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that,  at  various  periods, 
as  well  before  as  since  the  said  restriction,  the  Exchange  between  Great  Britain 
and  several  other  countries  have  been  unfavourable  to  Great  Britain;  and  that 
during  such  periods,  the  prices  of  gold  and  silver  bullion,  especially  of  such 
gold  bullion  as  could  be  legally  exported,  have  frequently  risen  above  the  mint 
price;  and  the  coinage  of  money  at  the  mint  has  been  either  wholly  suspended 
or  greatly  diminished  in  amount:  and  that  such  circumstances  have  usually  oc- 
curred when  expensive  naval  and  military  operations  have  been  carried  on 
abroad,  and  in  times  of  public  danger  and  alarm,  or  when  large  importations  of 
grain  from  foreign  parts  have  taken  place. 

Fifth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  such  unfavourable  ex- 
changes, and  rise  in  the  price  of  bullion,  occurred  to  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
during  the  wars  carried  on  by  King  William  the  Third  and  Queen  Anne,  and 
also  during  part  of  the  Seven  Years'  war,  and  of  the  American  war,  and  during 
the  war  and  scarcity  of  grain  in  1795  and  1796,  when  the  difficulty  of  procuring 
cash  or  bullion  increased  to  such  a  degree,  that  on  the  25th  of  February,  1797, 
the  Bank  of  England  was  restrained  from  making  payments  in  cash,  by  an  Or- 
der of  Council,  confirmed  and  continued  to  the  present  time  by  divers  Acts  of 
Parliament;  and  the  exchanges  became  still  more  unfavourable,  and  the  price 
of  bullion  higher,  during  the  scarcity  which  prevailed  for  two  years  previous 
to  the  peace  of  Amiens. 

Sixth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  unfavourable  state 
of  the  exchanges,  and  the  high  price  of  bullion,  do  not,  in  any  of  the  instances 
above  referred  to,  appear  to  have  been  produced  by  the  restriction  upon  cash 
payments  at  the  Bank  of  England,  or  by  any  excess  in  the  issue  of  bank  notes; 
inasmuch  as  all  the  said  instances,  except  the  last,  occurred  previously  to  any 
restriction  on  such  cash  payments;  and  because,  as  far  as  appears  by  such  in- 
formation as  has  been  procured,  the  price  of  bullion  has  frequently  been  high- 
est, and  the  exchanges  most  unfavourable,  at  periods  when  the  issues  of  bank 


6 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  189 

notes  have  been  considerably  diminished ;  and  they  have  been  afterwards  re- 
stored to  their  ordinary  rates,  although  those  issues  have  been  increased. 

Seventh. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  during  the  period 
of  nearly  seventy-eight  years,  ending  with  the  1st  of  January,  1796,  and  pre- 
vious to  the  aforesaid  restriction,  of  which  period  accounts  are  before  the 
House,  the  price  of  standard  gold  in  bars  had  been  at  or  under  the  Mint  price 
twenty-eight  years  and  five  months,  and  above  the  said  Mint  price  forty-eight 
years  and  eleven  months;  and  that  the  price  of  foreign  gold  coin  has  been  at 
or  under  3/.  18s.  per  ounce  thirty-six  years  and  seven  months,  and  above  the 
said  price  thirty-nine  years  and  three  months;  and  that  during  the  remaining 
intervals,  no  prices  are  stated.  And  that,  during  the  same  period  of  seventy- 
eight  years,  the  price  of  standard  silver  appears  to  have  been  at  or  under  the 
Mint  price  three  years  and  two  months  only. 

Eighth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  during  the  latter  part, 
and  for  some  months  after  the  close  of  the  American  War,  during  the  years 
1781,  1782,  and  1783,  the  exchange  with  Hamburgh  fell  from  34.  1.  to  31.  5. 
being  about  eight  per  cent. ;  and  the  price  of  foreign  gold  rose  from  3/.  17s.  (id. 
to  4/.  2s.  3d.  per  ounce,  and  the  price  of  dollars  from  5s.  4id.  per  ounce  to  5s. 
11|<?. ;  and  that  the  Bank  notes  in  circulation  were  reduced  between  March 
1782  and  September  1782,  from  9,160,000/.  to  5,905,000/.,  being  a  diminution 
of  above  one-third,  and  continued  (with  occasional  variations)  at  such  reduced 
rate  until  December,  1784 ;  and  that  the  exchange  with  Hamburgh  rose  to 
34.  6.,  and  the  price  of  gold  fell  to  3/.  17s.  6d.  and  dollars  to  5s.  l^d.  per  ounce 
before  the  25th  of  February,  1787,  the  amount  of  Bank  notes  being  then  in- 
creased to  8,688,000/. 

Ninth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  amount  of  Bank 
notes  in  February,  1787,  was  8,688,000/.  and  in  February,  1791,  11,699,000/. , 
and  that  during  the  same  period,  the  sum  of  10,704,000/.  was  coined  in  gold, 
and  that  the  exchange  with  Hamburgh  rose  about  3  per  cent. 

Tenth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  average  amount 
of  Bank  notes  in  the  year  1795  was  about  11,497,000/.,  and  on  the  25th  of 
February,  1797,  was  reduced  to  8,640,000/.  during  which  time  the  exchange 
with  Hamburgh  fell  from  36.  to  35.,  being  about  3  per  cent.;  and  the  said 
amount  was  increased  to  11,855,000/.  exclusive  of  1,542,000/.  in  notes  of  1/. 
and  21.  each,  on  the  1st  February,  1798,  during  which  time  the  exchange  rose 
to  38.  2.  being  about  9  per  cent. 

Eleventh. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  average  price 
of  wheat  per  quarter  in  England  in  the  year  1798,  was  50s.  3d. ;  in  1799,  67s. 
bd. ;  in  1800,  113s.  Id. ;  in  1801,  118s.  3d. ;  and  in  1802,  67s.  bd.  The  amount 
of  Bank  notes  of  51.  and  upwards,  was — 

£,                        £.       £•  £. 

In  1798,  about  10,920,400,  and  under  5^  1,786,000^1  f  12,706,400 

In  1799     "      12,04*.7:iu           "            1,626,110  ,  •          13,674,900 

In  1800     "      13.421,920           "           1,831,820  V  makinS  }  15,253,740 

In  1801      «      13^54,370            "            2,715,180  t0=>einer      L6,169,550 

In  1802     "       l3,'.H7,<.l-u            "            3,136,470j  U7,054,450 

That  the  exchange  with  Hamburgh  was,  in  January  1798,  38.  2.;  January 
1799,  37.  7.;  January  1800,32.;  January  1801,  29.  8.;  being  in  the  whole  a 
fall  of  above  22  per  cent. ;  in  January  1802,  32.  2.;  and  December  1802,  34., 
being  in  the  whole  a  rise  of  about  13  per  cent. 

Twelfth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  during  all  the  pe- 
riods above  referred  to,  previous  to  the  commencement  of  the  war  with  France 
in  1793,  the  principal  states  of  Europe  preserved  their  independence,  and  the 
trade  and  correspondence  thereof  were  carried  on  conformably  to  the  accus- 
tomed law  of  nations;  and  that,  although  from  the  time  of  the  invasion  of  Hol- 
land by  the  French  in  1795,  the  trade  of  Great  Britain  with  the  Continent  was 


190  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

in  part  circumscribed  and  interrupted,  it  was  carried  on  freely  with  several  of 
the  most  considerable  ports,  and  commercial  correspondence  was  maintained  at 
all  times  previous  to  the  summer  of  1807. 

Thirteenth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  since  the  month 
of  November  1806,  and  especially  since  the  summer  of  1807,  a  system  of  exclu- 
sion has  been  established  against  the  British  trade  on  the  Continent  of  Europe 
under  the  influence  and  terror  of  the  French  power,  and  enforced  with  a  de- 
gree of  violence  and  rigour  never  before  attempted ;  whereby  all  trade  and  cor- 
respondence between  Great  Britain  and  the  Continent  of  Europe  has  (with 
some  occasional  exceptions,  chiefly  in  Sweden  and  in  certain  parts  of  Spain 
and  Portugal)  been  hazardous,  precarious  and  expensive,  the  trade  being  load- 
ed with  excessive  freights  to  foreign  shipping,  and  other  unusual  charges ;  and 
that  the  trade  of  Great  Britain  with  the  United  States  of  America,  has  also 
been  uncertain  and  interrupted ;  and  that  in  addition  to  these  circumstances, 
which  have  greatly  affected  the  course  of  payments  between  this  country  and 
other  nations,  the  naval  and  military  expenditure  of  the  United  Kingdom  in 
foreign  parts  has,  for  three  years  past,  been  very  great,  and  the  price  of  grain, 
owing  to  a  deficiency  in  the  crops,  higher  than  at  any  time  whereof  the  ac- 
counts appear  before  Parliament,  except  during  the  scarcity  of  1800  and  1801, 
and  that  large  quantities  thereof  have  been  imported. 

Fourteenth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  amount  of 
currency  necessary  for  carrying  on  the  transactions  of  the  country  must  bear 
a  proportion  to  the  extent  of  its  trade  and  its  public  revenue  and  expenditure ; 
and  that  the  annual  amount  of  the  exports  and  imports  of  Great  Britain,  on  an 
average  of  three  years,  ending  5th  January,  1797,  was  48,732,651/.  official 
value;  the  average  amount  of  revenue  paid  into  the  Exchequer,  including 
monies  raised  by  lottery,  18,759,165/. ;  and  of  loans,  18,409,842/.,  making  to- 
gether 37,169,007/.;  and  the  average  amount  of  the  total  expenditure  of  Great 
Britain  42,855,111/.;  and  that  the  average  amount  of  Bank  notes  in  circulation 
(all  of  which  were  for  51.  or  upwards)  was  about  10,782,780/. ;  and  that  57,- 
274,617/.  had  been  coined  in  gold  during  His  Majesty's  reign,  of  which  a  large 
sum  was  then  in  circulation. 

That  the  annual  amount  of  the  exports  and  imports  of  Great  Britain,  on  an 
average  of  three  years,  ending  5th  January,  1811,  supposing  the  imports  from 
the  East  Indies  and  China  to  have  been  equal  to  their  amount  in  the  preceding 
year,  was  77,971,318/.,  the  average  amount  of  revenue  paid  into  the  Exche- 
quer, 62,763,746/.,  and  of  loans,  12,673,  548/.,  making  together  75,437,294/. ; 
and  the  average  amount  of  the  total  expenditure  of  Great  Britain  82,205,066/.; 
and  that  the  average  amount  of  Bank  notes  above  50/.  was  about  14,265,850/., 
and  of  notes  under  5/.  about  5,283,320/. ;  and  that  the  amount  of  gold  coin  in 
circulation  was  greatly  diminished. 

Fifteenth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  the  situation  of 
this  kingdom,  in  respect  of  its  political  and  commercial  relations  with  foreign 
countries,  as  above  stated,  is  sufficient,  without  any  change  in  the  internal  value 
of  its  currency,  to  account  for  the  unfavourable  state  of  the  foreign  exchanges, 
and  for  the  high  price  of  bullion. 

Sixteenth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  it  is  highly  im- 
portant that  the  restriction  on  the  payments  in  cash  of  the  Bank  of  England 
should  be  removed,  whenever  the  political  and  commercial  relations  of  the 
country  shall  render  it  compatible  with  the  public  interest. 

Seventeenth. — That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  that  under  the  circum- 
stances affecting  the  political  and  commercial  relations  of  this  kingdom  with 
foreign  countries,  it  would  be  highly  inexpedient  and  dangerous  now  to  fix  a 
definite  period  for  the  removal  of  the  restriction  of  cash  payments  at  the  Bank 
of  England  prior  to  the  term  already  fixed  by  the  Act  44  Geo.  III.  c.  1,  of  six 
months  after  the  conclusion  of  a  definite  treaty  of  peace. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  191 

Mr.  Canning. — I  should  not  have  thought  it  necessary,  Sir, 
to  trouble  the  Committee  with  the  expression  of  my  sentiments 
in  this  night's  debate,  after  the  able  and  lucid  speech  of  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman  who  spoke  last  (Mr.  H.  Thornton,)  if  I  had 
not  been  desirous  of  addressing  myself  more  particularly  than  he 
has  done  to  the  propositions  now  brought  forward,  in  the  shape 
of  Resolutions,  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite  to  me 
(Mr.  Vansittart,)  which  are  the  immediate  subject  of  this  night's 
deliberation. 

I  should,  indeed,  be  unpardonable,  if,  after  having  already  tres- 
passed at  so  great  length  on  the  indulgence  of  the  Committee, 
when  the  original  Resolutions  were  under  discussion,  I  should 
again  expatiate  upon  the  general  subject  which  I  conceive  to  have 
been  disposed  of  by  the  vote  of  the  former  night.  The  present, 
however,  is  a  very  different  question  from  that  which  was  then 
decided.  We  decided  by  our  former  vote,  not  to  adopt  the  prac- 
tical recommendation  of  the  Bullion  Committee.  In  that  vote  I 
concurred.  We  decided  farther,  not  to  sanction  and  record  the 
declaration  of  the  principles  of  our  money  system,  on  which  the 
recommendation  of  the  Bullion  Committee  was  founded.  In  that 
decision  I  did  not  concur,  and  it  is  one  which  I  deeply  regret;  be- 
cause those  principles  were,  as  I  think,  correctly  defined  in  the 
original  Resolutions;  and  because  I  think  that  a  declaration  of 
them,  under  the  sanction  of  this  House,  would  have  been  emi- 
nently useful  at  the  present  moment. 

But  the  House  having  thought  otherwise,  and  having  rejected 
all  the  Resolutions  of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman;  my 
next  wish  would  have  been,  that  with  that  rejection  the  whole 
discussion  should  have  terminated.  Why  pursue  it  farther?  The 
Bullion  Committee  is  defeated;  its  doctrines  are,  at  least  for  the 
present,  set  aside.  Why  could  not  its  antagonists  be  contented 
with  this  negative  victory?  Why  must  they  aim  at  the  unneces- 
sary and  perilous  triumph  of  substituting  their  own  doctrines  in 
the  place  of  those  which  they  have  discomfited  ? 

In  the  majority  of  the  former  night  were  numbered  many  per- 
sons who  profess  to  disapprove  of  abstract  propositions.  Those 
persons  must,  in  common  consistency,  oppose  the  propositions  of 
the  right  honourable  gentleman,  which  are  to  the  full  as  abstract 
as  the  original  Resolutions.  In  that  majority  were  many  who  not 
only  did  not  agree  with  the  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite 
to  me,  in  denying  the  existence  of  a  depreciation  of  the  paper 
currency;  but  who  distinctly  declared  their  entire  conviction  of 
the  existence  of  that  depreciation,  and  only  thought  it  too  notori- 
ous and  undeniable  to  require  the  formality  of  a  parliamentary 
affirmation.  Can  those  persons  be  expected  by  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  to  concur  in  the  Resolutions  which  he  is  now 


192  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

bringing  forward?  Others  again  there  were,  who,  neither  admit- 
ting nor  denying  the  depreciation,  were  desirous  only  of  escaping 
from  the  necessity  of  a  decision  either  way:  contending  that  no 
result  could  be  so  satisfactory,  as  the  discussion  itself  was  mis- 
chievous. Will  those  persons  thank  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man for  reviving  a  discussion  which,  if  it  had  finally  closed  on 
Friday  night,  would  have  left  them  in  quiet  possession  of  their 
doubts, — doubts  which  any  man  might  very  reasonably  prefer  to 
a  decision  in  support  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  third 
Resolution? 

Independently  of  this  violence  to  the  feelings  and  judgments 
of  his  supporters,  has  the  right  honourable  gentleman  no  consid- 
eration for  the  reputation  of  the  House  of  Commons  itself,  when 
he  calls  upon  us,  by  voting  that  Resolution,  to  affirm  a  proposition, 
which,  I  will  venture  to  say,  there  is  no  man  who,  without  the 
doors  of  the  House,  could  affirm  with  a  grave  countenance  ? 

The  third  Resolution  is  the  essential  part,  the  soul  and  spirit, 
of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  system.  Of  the  other  Reso- 
lutions, the  first  and  the  fifteenth  are  the  only  two,  which,  in  my 
view  of  the  subject,  appear  to  require  particular  observation.  The 
remainder,  from  the  fourth  to  the  fourteenth,  inclusive,  contain  a 
vast  variety  of  statements,  historical,  political,  commercial,  finan- 
cial and  agricultural;  some  accurate,  some  inaccurate;  but  all  val- 
uable rather  from  their  intrinsic  erudition,  than  from  any  very 
near  connexion  with  the  subject  before  us.  With  none  of  these, 
therefore,  shall  I  presume  to  meddle. 

But,  before  I  proceed  to  the  three  Resolutions  in  which  the 
whole  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  argument  lies,  I  must 
say  a  word  or  two  in  answer  to  a  challenge  of  the  right  honoura- 
ble gentlemen  as  to  his  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  Resolutions.* 
He  states,  and  states  very  truly,  that  I  had  declared  myself  ready 
to  vote  for  those  two  Resolutions,  provided  they  were  prefaced 
and  introduced,  not  by  his  own  preceding  Resolutions,  but  by  the 
first  ten  of  the  original  Resolutions  moved  by  the  honourable  and 
learned  Chairman  of  the  Bullion  Committee.  The  right  honour- 
able gentleman  triumphs  in  this  declaration  of  mine,  as  if  it  had 
been  a  concession  to  his  argument,  instead  of  an  exposition  of  my 
own.  He  has  caught  me  in  a  great  inconsistency  it  seems.  And 
what  is  this  inconsistency  ?  That  I  am  ready  to  affirm  two  things 
irreconcilable  with  each  other?  That  I  would  vote  premises  that 
did  not  bear  out  their  conclusion,  or  a  conclusion  contradictory  to 
its  premises?  No  such  thing;  but,  simply,  that  I  am  ready  to 
adopt  the  premises  suggested  by  one  man,  and  the  conclusion 
drawn  by  another.    This  is  what  he  considers  as  an  inconsistency; 

*  See  Res.  16, 17. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  193 

as  if  consistency  had  reference  not  to  the  compatibility  of  doc- 
trines, but  to  the  identity  of  persons  holding  them. 

It  is  true  that  if  the  first  ten  of  the  original  Resolutions  had 
been  carried,  I  should  not  have  objected  to  adding  to  them  the 
two  concluding  propositions  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman. 
But  I  cannot  consent  to  vote  for  them  by  themselves,  nor  if  in- 
troduced by  his  own  preceding  propositions. 

I  am  not,  any  more  than  the  right  honourable  gentleman  him- 
self, for  changing  the  period  now  fixed  by  law  for  the  repeal  of 
the  Bank  restriction.  I  could  therefore  have  been  contented  to 
vote  for  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  of  the  right  honourable 
gentleman's  propositions,  if  those  principles,  respecting  the  stand- 
ard of  our  money,  which  were  luminously  and  accurately  devel- 
oped in  the  Resolutions  moved  by  the  Chairmain  of  the  Bullion 
Committee  had  been  previously  recognised  and  sanctioned.  The 
truth  of  these  principles  once  admitted,  there  might  have  been 
comparatively  little  danger  in  deciding  either  way  the  question, 
whether  the  period  for  returning  to  the  strict  practical  application 
of  them  should  be  accelerated.  But  to  decide  that  question  in  a 
way  which  should  imply  a  denial  of  the  truth  of  those  principles, 
would  be  productive  of  a  mischief  than  which  none  can  be  great- 
er, except,  indeed,  that  of  adopting  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man's Resolutions,  in  which  the  truth  of  those  principles  is  de- 
nied, not  by  implication,  but  directly. 

To  have  abstained  from  adopting  the  original  Resolutions,  pro- 
vided no  others  were  agreed  to  in  their  room,  would  be  to  leave 
the  true  principles  of  our  money  system  unvouched  indeed,  but 
not  discredited,  and  to  leave  the  Bank  restriction  precisely  as  it 
stands.  To  declare  the  continuance  of  the  Bank  restriction,  by 
adopting  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth resolutions  only,  without  adverting  at  the  same  time  to 
the  principles  laid  down  by  the  Bullion  Committee,  would  be  to 
leave  it  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  restriction  was  continued 
because  those  principles  were  false,  or  only  because  their  force 
was  overborne  by  considerations  of  expediency.  This  result  would 
be  unsatisfactory  enough.  To  adopt  and  record  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman's  premises  as  the  foundation  of  his  own  con- 
clusion, would  be,  in  his  view,  no  doubt,  perfectly  consistent;  but 
it  would  be  a  consistency  obtained  at  no  less  an  expense  than  that 
of  abrogating,  so  far  as  the  Resolutions  of  this  House  can  abro- 
gate it,  the  whole  system  under  which  the  currency  of  this  coun- 
try has  been  hitherto  regulated  and  preserved  in  a  state  of  purity 
and  integrity,  equally  creditable  to  the  character  of  the  state,  and 
to  the  increasing  vigilance  and  anxiety  of  Parliament. 

In  matters  which  have  been  frequently  the  object  of  parlia- 
mentary revision,  it  is  no  light  thing  to  come  to  Resolutions  of  a 
27  s 


194  ON   THE  REPORT  OF 

general  and  abstract  nature  without  taking  the  former  proceed- 
ings of  Parliament  for  our  guide. 

If  they  who  dissented  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Bullion  Com- 
mittee thought  the  errors  of  that  Committee  the  more  formidable 
on  account  of  the  authority  by  which  they  were  inculcated,  how 
much  more  cautious  ought  we  to  be  in  ascertaining,  beyond  pos- 
sibility of  doubt,  the  truth  of  those  doctrines  which  we  are  now 
called  upon  to  promulgate  by  the  much  higher  authority  of  the 
House  itself? 

A  declaration  of  the  law  by  one  of  the  branches  of  the  Legis- 
lature ought  not  to  be  made  at  all  but  for  a  grave  and  adequate 
object;  and,  at  least,  ought  to  be  unimpeachably  correct. 

Let  us  examine  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  first  Resolu- 
tion, in  this  double  view.  First,  let  us  see  how  far  it  is  positively 
correct;  and  secondly,  what  is  the  object  to  which  it  is  directed, 
and  how  far  it  attains  that  object.* 

That  the  right  of  establishing  and  regulating  the  legal  money 
of  this  kingdom  is  a  prerogative  of  the  Sovereign,  is  most  un- 
doubtedly true:  that  the  Sovereigns  of  this  kingdom  have  at  dif- 
ferent times  altered  the  value  of  such  money,  is  also  true — if  by 
value  be  intended  only  the  denomination  of  such  money,  that  is, 
the  rate  at  which  any  given  quantity  of  gold  or  silver  should  be 
current  within  these  realms.  But  "  value,"  absolutely  stated,  is 
by  no  means  a  correct  expression.  To  alter  the  positive  intrinsic 
value  of  the  precious  metals,  or  make  it  other  than  it  is  by  nature, 
and  by  the  relation  which  those  metals  bear  to  other  commodi- 
ties, is  a  power,  which  neither  kings  nor  parliaments  have  hith- 
erto, so  far  as  I  know,  arrogated;  but  the  existence  of  which,  to 
be  sure,  would  at  once  put  an  end  to  all  dispute,  and  give  to  the 
right  honourable  gentleman,  and  those  who  side  with  him,  a  com- 
plete triumph.  If  value  were,  indeed,  the  offspring  of  authority, 
there  is  no  doubt  but  that  paper  or  pasteboard,  or  any  viler  ma- 
terial, might  be  raised  by  that  authority  to  a  level  with  gold.  But 
the  only  power  which  Sovereigns  have  ever  yet  exercised  or 
claimed,  has  been  to  fix  the  rate  or  "  current "  value  of  coin 
within  their  own  dominions. 

Nor  is  it  merely  an  inaccuracy  of  expression  to  omit  this 
qualification  of  the  word  "  value."  It  is  an  inaccuracy  which 
may  lead  to  serious  misconception  in  a  case  where  the  whole  con- 
troversy turns  upon  this  single  question,  "  whether  there  be  or 
be  not  an  inherent  inextinguishable  value  in  the  precious  metals 
estimated  according  to  their  relation  to  other  commodities  gene- 
rally, throughout  the  world;  and  independent  of  any  arbitrary 
valuation,  which  positive  edicts  or  enactments  can  affix  to  them?" 

*See  1st  Resolution. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  195 

The  right  honourable  gentleman's  proposition,  as  it  stands,  with- 
out the  addition  to  the  word  "value"  of  the  epithets  "current" 
or  "  denominative,"  would  go  to  favour  the  notion  that  edicts 
and  enactments  have  this  power:  a  notion  so  wild  that  it  might 
seem  almost  unnecessary  to  guard  against  it,  if  it,  or  something 
very  like  it,  were  not  in  fact  the  foundation  of  almost  all  the 
right  honourable  gentleman's  arguments. 

He  cannot,  however,  intend  to  avow  such  a  notion.  He  will, 
therefore,  I  presume,  have  no  objection  to  qualify  the  word 
"  value,"  by  the  addition  of  one  or  other  of  the  epithets  which  I 
have  suggested.  So  qualified,  the  proposition,  that  the  Sovereign 
has  at  different  times  varied  the  "  current  "  or  "  denominative  " 
value  of  the  coin,  would  be  true,  and  perfectly  harmless. 

The  Resolution  proceeds  to  state,  that  this  has  been  done  by 
proclamation,  "  or  "  by  Act  of  Parliament.  This  is  also  a  true 
proposition;  but  upon  this  also  I  must  observe,  that  it  is  not 
stated  with  sufficient  qualification.  The  Resolution  seems  to  im- 
ply that  the  option  between  the  two  modes  of  proceeding  is  per- 
fectly arbitrary;  that  Parliament  may  be  either  admitted  into,  or 
excluded  from,  a  share  in  the  operation,  exactly  according  to  the 
will  and  pleasure  of  the  Crown.  But,  I  would  take  the  liberty 
of  suggesting  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  that  it  was  not 
enough  to  state  the  abstract  principles  and  theory  of  the  constitu- 
tion; it  was  incumbent  on  him  to  state  them  as  they  have  been 
acted  upon,  as  they  are  modified  by  practice,  as  they  are  to  be 
found,  not  in  the  proclamations  of  Henry  the  Vlllth,  but  in  the 
statute  book;  in  statutes  of  the  last  century;  in  those  of  the  pres- 
ent reign. 

The  Sovereign  (says  the  right  honourable  gentleman)  can  alter 
the  value  of  the  coin — but  can  he  do  that  at  the  present  moment, 
without  consent  of  Parliament?  Can  he  do  it  against  existing 
Acts  of  Parliament?  Can  he,  except  by  the  aid  and  concurrence 
of  Parliament,  repeal  the  Acts  of  the  14th  of  the  present  reign, 
which  were  passed  on  occasion  of  the  last  recoinage  of  the  gold; 
and  which  must  be  repealed  or  amended,  if  any  alteration  should 
be  made  in  the  current  value  of  the  guinea?  Unquestionably  the 
King,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  prerogative,  can,  by  his 
proclamation,  reduce  or  raise  the  denomination  of  the  current 
coin.  But,  if  by  doing  so,  he  would  place  his  subjects  in  the  di- 
lemma of  either  disregarding  his  proclamation,  or  acting  in  con- 
travention of  an  Act  of  Parliament,  would  it  be  in  that  case  a 
sound  or  a  safe  statement  of  the  law,  to  give  a  naked  definition 
of  the  prerogative,  without  reference  to  the  practical  restrictions 
by  which  the  exercise  of  it  must  necessarily  be  controlled? 

Are  the  opinions  of  lawyers  so  settled  and  uniform  upon  this 
subject  as  to  warrant  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  sweeping 


196  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

and  unqualified  assertion  ?  Do  lawyers  agree  that  there  is  no  limit 
to  the  power  of  the  Crown  in  this  respect?  that  the  Crown  may 
give  what  current  value  it  pleases  to  coin,  which  it  may  debase 
at  its  pleasure  ? 

I  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  all  such  authorities  are  uniformly 
the  other  way:  it  would,  perhaps,  be  difficult  to  name  that  branch 
of  the  prerogative  which  has  not  been  exalted  to  an  excess  in  the 
speeches  or  writings  of  some  one  or  other  of  the  great  Crown 
lawyers  who  have  spoken  or  written  upon  the  prerogative.  But 
such  opinions,  even  if  they  were  more  general  than  they  will  be 
found  to  be,  surely  could  not  avail  against  positive  statute. 

"  The  denomination  "  (says  Blackstone,)  "  or  the  value  for 
which  the  coin  is  to  pass  current,  is  likewise  in  the  breast  of  the 
King;  and  if  any  unusual  pieces  are  coined,  that  value  must  be 
ascertained  by  proclamation.  In  order  to  fix  the  value,  the  weight 
and  the  fineness  of  the  metal  are  to  be  taken  into  consideration 
together.  When  a  given  weight  of  gold  or  silver  is  of  a  given 
fineness,  it  is  then  of  the  true  standard,  and  is  called  sterling. 
Of  this  sterling  metal  all  the  coin  of  the  kingdom  must  be  made 
by  the  statute  25  Edw.  III.  cap.  15;  so  that  the  King's  preroga- 
tive seemeth  not  to  extend  to  the  debasing  or  enhancing  the  value 
of  the  coin  below  or  above  the  sterling  value:  though  Sir  Matthew 
Hale  appears  to  be  of  another  opinion." 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  may  perhaps  tell  me  that  his 
opinion  agrees  with  that  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale;  to  which  Judge 
Blackstone  here  refers  as  seemingly  more  favourable  to  the  pre- 
rogative than  his  own.  But  if  he  will  look  into  that  elaborate 
and  instructive  treatise,  which  contains  an  abstract  of  all  the  learn- 
ing and  all  the  history  relating  to  our  coinage — I  mean  the  Let^ 
ter  of  the  late  Earl  of  Liverpool  to  the  King — he  will  there  find 
in  what  respects  the  Legislature  has  limited  the  exercise  of  that 
prerogative,  since  the  death  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale.  He  will  find 
it  stated  that,  even  in  Sir  Matthew  Hale's  opinion,  "  though  this 
great  prerogative  is  unquestionable,  it  is  certainly  advisable  that 
in  the  exercise  of  it,  whenever  any  great  change  is  intended  to 
be  made,  the  King  should  avail  himself  of  the  wisdom  and  sup- 
port of  his  Parliament."  "  Sir  Matthew  Hale  observes,"  says 
Lord  Liverpool,  "  that  it  is  neither  safe  nor  honourable  for  the 
King  to  imbase  his  coin  below  sterling;  if  it  be  at  any  time  done, 
it  is  fit  to  be  done  by  the  assent  of  Parliament:  and  he  concludes, 
that  on  such  occasions  '■fieri  non  debuit,  factum  valet.'  " 

Even  if  such  were  still  the  state  of  the  prerogative,  would  it 
justify  a  Resolution  of  the  House  of  Commons,  which  describes 
that  prerogative  as  absolute  and  indefinite,  and  describes  "  the  as- 
sent of  Parliament"  not  as  that  with  which,  according  to  Sir 
Matthew  Hale,  "  it  is  fit "  that  such  alteration  should  be  made,  if 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  197 

made  at  all;  and  without  which,  according  to  the  same  authority, 
"fieri  non  debuit;"  but  merely  as  that  which  it  is  optional  with 
the  Crown  to  ask  or  not  to  ask,  according  to  its  good  pleasure? 
Would  such  a  Resolution  have  befitted  the  House  of  Commons, 
even  at  the  time  when  Sir  Matthew  Hale  wrote  ?  Is  it  possible 
to  pass  it  now;  when  that  prerogative,  which  by  Sir  Matthew 
Hale  was  considered  as  unfit  to  be  exercised  without  consent  of 
Parliament,  stands  actually  limited  by  statute? 

Let  us  now  consider  what  is  the  object  with  a  view  to  which 
this  exposition  of  the  law  is  made,  and  how  far  thatob;ect  is  at- 
tained by  it. 

The  question  in  agitation  is,  whether  our  paper  currency  be  or 
be  not  depreciated  ?    The  price  of  gold  in  that  paper  currency  is 
adduced  in  proof  of  the  depreciation.     What  answer  is  it  to  this 
question — what  refutation  is  it  of  this  proof — to  say,  "  The  King's 
prerogative  can  alter  the  value  of  the  coin?" — Granted  that  it 
can.     At  least  it  has  not  done  so  in  the  present  instance.     The 
coin  is  not  varied  in  value:  the  paper  currency,  it  is  contended, 
is.     The  King's  prerogative  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  paper 
of  the  Bank.     The  paper   of  the   Bank   is   not   (God   forbid  it 
ever  should  be!)   the  legal  money  of   the  realm.     How,  then, 
does  the  King's  prerogative  decide — how  does  it  even  affect — 
the  question  as  to  the  depreciation  of  Bank  paper?    It  can  by 
no  possibility  affect  it  at  all,  unless  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man be  prepared  to  address  us  in  something  like  the  following 
manner — "  The  King  has  a  power  to  make  whatever  he  pleases 
money;  and  to  make  that  money  of  what  value  he  pleases.     If 
you  murmur  at  this  supposed  depreciation  of  bank  notes,  beware 
that  you  do  not  provoke  an  exercise  of  the  prerogative,  which 
shall  make  those  bank  notes  to  all  intents  and    purposes  legal 
money;    or  which  shall  cure  that  pretended  disparity  between 
paper  and  gold  about  which  you  clamour  so  loudly,  by  raising 
the  denomination  of  the  coin." 

Is  this  what  the  right  honourable  gentleman  means  to  say?  If 
so,  though  I  do  not  think  that  there  would  be  much  wisdom  in 
the  measure,  I  admit  that  his  Resolution  is  an  apt  and  natural  in- 
troduction to  it.  I  can  at  least  understand  its  application  to  the 
subject.  I  can  see  what  is  meant  by  it.  But  unless  this  be  his 
meaning,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  the  assertion  that  the 
paper  currency  is  actually  depreciated,  is  disproved,  or  even 
touched,  by  the  assertion  of  the  King's  prerogative  to  establish 
and  alter  nt.  his  pleasure  the  legal  money  of  the  realm. 

The  Resolutions  on  the  subject  of  the  coinage  laws,  which  we 
rejected  on  a  former  night,  and  for  which  this  of  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman  is  intended  as  a  substitute,  had  a  direct  and 
sensible  bearing  upon  the  question  in  dispute.     In  affirming  the 

s* 


198  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

depreciation  of  the  paper  currency,  it  was  necessary  to  define  the 
standard  by  which  such  currency  was  to  be  measured.  The  hon- 
ourable and  learned  mover  of  the  original  Resolutions  did  define  it, 
and,  as  I  think,  with  perfect  truth  as  well  as  precision.  Can  it  be 
the  right  honourable  gentleman's  intention,  by  stating  with  such 
laxity  the  absolute  and  indefinite  power  of  the  Crown  over  the 
legal  money  of  the  realm,  to  imply  that,  where  every  thing  is 
liable  to  such  arbitrary  fluctuation,  there  can  be  no  fixed  standard 
by  which  to  measure  the  value  of  the  currency?  If  his  argu- 
ment be  good  for  any  thing,  it  can  only  be  so  by  being  pushed  to 
this  extent:  but  even  then  it  affords  no  answer  to  the  Resolutions 
of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman.  Those  resolutions  as- 
serted that  the  paper  currency  is  in  a  state  of  depreciation,  if 
measured  by  the  existing  standard  of  our  legal  currency.  The 
right  honourable  gentleman  does  not  contradict  this  assertion;  he 
passes  it  by;  he  says  nothing  at  all  as  to  what  the  standard  of  our 
currency  really  is;  but  contents  himself  with  disparaging  its  fit- 
ness as  a  measure  of  value,  by  insinuating  that,  whatever  it  may 
be  at  the  present  moment,  the  King  has,  by  his  prerogative,  an 
unlimited  power  of  changing  it. 

But,  again,  even  if  the  King  has  this  power,  it  is  not  pretended 
that  he  has  in  point  of  fact  thought  fit  to  exercise  it.  If  any 
part  of  our  currency  has  been  varied  in  its  value,  either  in  re- 
spect to  another  part  of  it,  or  in  repect  to  the  standard,  it  is  not 
pretended  that  this  has  been  done  by  the  interposition  of  the 
Crown.  The  complaint  is,  however,  that  such  a  variation  has  in 
fact  taken  place  in  the  value  of  Bank  paper.  What  answer  is  it 
to  this  complaint,  to  say,  that  though  the  King  has  not,  yet  he 
might,  if  he  pleased,  have  made  a  like  variation  in  the  current 
value  of  the  coin  ? 

There  is,  however,  another  operation  of  the  prerogative,  which, 
to  make  his  definition  complete,  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man ought  to  have  noticed:  but  which  he  has  altogether  omitted, 
perhaps  because  he  saw  that  it  would  bear  inconveniently  upon 
his  argument:  I  mean  the  King's  power  of  giving  currency  to 
foreign  coin  within  his  own  dominions.  Now  one  of  the  plainest 
illustrations  of  the  actual  depreciation  of  our  paper  currency  has 
been  derived  from  the  change  which  has  been  recently  made  in 
the  current  value  of  the  dollar. 

"  The  King,"  says  Mr.  Justice  Blackstone  in  the  same  part  of 
his  work  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  "  may  also,  by  his 
proclamation,  legitimate  foreign  coin,  and  make  it  current  here; 
declaring  at  what  value  it  shall  be  taken  in  payments.  But  this, 
I  apprehend,  ought  to  be  by  comparison  with  the  standard  of 
our  own  coin;  otherwise  the  consent  of  Parliament  will  be  ne- 
cessary-" 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  199 

"  This  great  prerogative,"  says  Lord  Liverpool  in  his  Letter 
to  the  King,  "  which  the  Kings  of  this  realm  have  immemorially 
enjoyed  and  exercised,  of  giving  currency  to  the  coins  made  at 
their  mint,  and  sometimes  to  foreign  coins,  at  a  determinate  rate 
or  value,  and  of  enhancing  and  debasing  them  at  their  pleasure, 
is  of  so  important  and  delicate  a  nature,  and  the  justice  and  hon- 
our of  the  Sovereign,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  people,  are 
so  deeply  concerned  in  it,  that  it  ought  to  be  exercised  with  the 
greatest  judgment  and  discretion." 

We  here  see  the  limitations  in  point  of  law,  which,  in  the 
opinion  of  so  able  a  lawyer  as  Blackstone, — and  those  in  point  of 
prudence  and  discretion  which,  in  the  opinion  of  so  profound  a 
practical  statesman  as  the  Earl  of  Liverpool,  would  have  gov- 
erned the  exercise  of  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown  in  giving 
currency  to  the  dollar.  Have  these  limitations,  has  this  caution, 
been  observed  in  fixing  the  rate  at  which  the  dollar  now  circu- 
lates? The  intrinsic  value  of  the  dollar  "by  comparison  with 
the  standard  of  our  own  coin," — as  compared,  for  example,  with 
the  British  crown  piece — is  nearly  in  the  proportion  of  nine  to 
ten.  The  current  rate  at  which  the  dollar  circulates,  as  com- 
pared with  the  crown  piece,  is  now  in  the  proportion  of  eleven 
to  ten. 

By  what  authority  has  so  strange  an  anomaly  been  introduced 
into  our  money  system  ? — an  anomaly  which,  according  to  Black- 
stone,  the  Crown,  in  the  exercise  of  its  prerogative,  is  bound  to 
avoid.  By  an  ordinance  of  the  Bank.  The  prerogative  of  the 
Crown,  we  have  seen,  might  have  given  currency  to  the  dollar: 
but  it  could  only  have  done  so  at  a  rate  proportionate  to  its  in- 
trinsic value,  as  compared  with  the  standard  of  the  realm;  or  for 
any  deviation  from  that  standard  it  must  have  obtained  the  con- 
currence of  Parliament.  But  the  thing  is  done.  It  is  one  of  the 
main  features  of  our  present  system.  It  makes  one  of  the  grounds 
of  the  complaint  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  proposes 
to  answer  by  the  authoritative  language  of  his  first  Resolution. 
And  how  docs  he  answer  it?  By  referring  to  the  prerogative  of 
the  Crown  as  the  authority  by  which  alone  the  currency  can  be 
regulated;  and  yet  omitting  altogether  a  part  of  that  prerogative, 
so  essential  to  the  present  subject,  as  the  power  of  giving  cur- 
rency to  foreign  coin!  He  omits  it — Why? — Evidently  because 
he  could  not  state  it,  without  acknowledging,  at  the  same  time, 
that  the  rules  by  which  the  exercise  of  that  part  of  the  preroga- 
tive has  always  been  governed,  have  been  entirely  neglected  in 
the  issue  of  the  dollar  at  its  present  rate;  and  because  he  could 
not  make  that  acknowledgment  without  avowing  the  depreciation 
of  our  currency. 

Before  the  late  ordinance  of  the  Bank,  nine  crown  pieces  would 


200  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

have  exchanged  for  ten  dollars.  Now,  ten  dollars  cannot  be  had 
for  less  than  eleven  crowns.  If  this  be  not  depreciation,  what  is 
it?  Perhaps  I  shall  be  warned  that  this  argument  proves  too  much; 
for  that  the  depreciation  here  established  would  be  that  of  the 
lawful  coin  of  the  realm, — not  of  the  paper  currency,  of  which 
alone  the  depreciation  is  asserted. 

I  answer — the  depreciation  of  the  lawful  coin  in  respect  to  the 
dollar  is  effected  through  the  medium  of  the  paper.  If  the  crown 
piece  and  the  dollar  circulated  together  without  the  intervention 
of  the  paper,  it  would  be  impossible  that  they  should  bear  to  each 
other  any  other  relation  than  that  which  arises  naturally  from 
their  respective  intrinsic  values.  It  is  by  the  intervention  of  the 
paper,  which  measures  the  one  according  to  its  nominal,  the  other 
according  to  its  intrinsic  value,  that  this  relation  is  forcibly  in- 
verted, and  the  more  valuable  is  degraded  below  the  less  valuable 
coin. 

I  shall  probably  be  told,  however,  that  the  dollar  is  a  mere 
token;  it  is  no  more  than  a  promissory  note  in  silver,  which  no 
man  is  bound  to  accept  in  payment.  This  is  perfectly  true:  but 
it  is  a  singular  argument  to  be  relied  upon  by  the  practical  school, 
since  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  dollar,  such  as  it  is,  constitutes  in 
fact  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  metallic  currency  now  in  circu- 
lation. In  the  same  way  it  has  been  argued,  that  a  bank  note  is 
not  a  legal  tender — that  no  man  is  bound  to  take  a  bank  note 
from  his  neighbour  in  satisfaction  of  a  just  debt.  This  also  is 
true:  but  it  is  no  less  so  that  the  public  creditor  is  bound  to  re- 
ceive bank  notes,  or  at  least  can  get  nothing  else,  in  payment  of 
his  demand  upon  the  state;  and  it  seems  to  be  no  great  consolation 
to  the  public  creditor  to  be  assured  that  what  he  is  compelled  to 
take  from  the  Government,  nobody  is  compellable  to  take  from 
him. 

This  being  then  practically  the  state  of  our  currency,  what  sat- 
isfaction, I  must  again  ask,  does  the  first  Resolution  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  afford  to  those  who  complain  of  the  depre- 
ciation of  bank  paper,  by  stating,  and  stating,  as  it  appears,  incor- 
rectly, the  money  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  ? — prerogatives, 
which,  in  respect  to  the  bulk  of  our  currency,  the  paper,  have  no 
operation  at  all;  and  which,  in  respect  to  the  small  portion  of  me- 
tallic currency  which  we  possess,  have  been  suffered  to  lie  dor- 
mant and  passive,  while  that  currency  has  been  regulated,  by  an- 
other authority,  on  principles  directly  contrary  to  those  by  which 
the  Crown  must  have  been  guided  in  giving  currency  to  a  foreign 
coin. 

This  Resolution,  therefore,  the  House  of  Commons  cannot  but 
reject:  first,  because  it  is  defective  as  a  definition  of  the  preroga- 
tive which  it  affects  to  define;  secondly,  because  it  is  wholly  in- 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  201 

applicable  to  the  only  points  about  which  there  is  any  dispute, — 
namely,  bank  paper,  which  is  out  of  the  province  of  the  preroga- 
tive; and  the  foreign  silver  currency,  of  which  in  fact  it  has  taken 
no  cognizance;  and  lastly,  because  it  is  calculated,  by  implication 
at  least,  to  exclude  Parliament  from  all  share  in  the  regulation  of 
a  subject,  in  which,  in  all  good  times,  Parliament  has  claimed  it 
as  a  right,  and  felt  it  a  duty,  to  interfere,  whenever  the  occasion 
has  called  for  its  interference. 

It  is  impossible  to  pass  over  the  second  Resolution  without  ob- 
serving, that  it  remains  liable  to  the  objection  which  I  took  the 
liberty  of  making  to  it  in  a  former  debate.*  The  words  "  on  de- 
mand" are  still  omitted:  I  trust,  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
intends  to  supply  this  omission.  I  must  say,  that  the  persisting 
in  it  would  afford  just  ground  of  serious  suspicion  and  alarm. 

I  now  come  to  the  main  Resolution  of  all,  the  third.  This  it 
is  that  contains  the  sum  and  substance  of  all  the  right  honourable 
gentleman's  arguments  and  doctrines;  and  to  which  I  cannot  be- 
lieve it  possible,  until  the  vote  shall  actually  have  passed,  that  any 
assembly  of  reasonable  men  can  be  persuaded  to  give  their  con- 
currence.    The  Resolution  is  as  follows: 

III.  That  the  Promissory  Notes  of  the  said  Company  have  hitherto  been,  and 
are  at  this  time,  held  in  public  estimation  to  be  equivalent  to  the  legal  coin 
of  the  Realm,  and  generally  accepted  as  such  in  all  pecuniary  transactions 
to  which  such  coin  is  legally  applicable. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman,  in  stating  what  he  considered 
to  be  the  effect  of  this  Resolution,  made  use  of  an  expression 
which  does  indeed  most  truly  describe  its  character,  and  the  char- 
acter of  that  assent  which  he  reckons  upon  obtaining  to  it.  By 
this  Resolution,  said  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  we  "  pledge 
ourselves  to  believe  the  equivalency  of  bank  notes  to  coin." 
Pledge  ourselves  to  believe!  This  is  perhaps  more  than  any  man 
ever  before  avowed  of  himself;  but  certainly  more  than  any  man 
ever  openly  declared  his  intention  to  exact  from  others.  Belief 
is  not  usually  matter  of  volition;  therefore,  one  should  think,  it 
cannot  reasonably  be  made  matter  of  undertaking  and  engage- 
ment. Of  all  martyrs  of  whatever  faith,  I  have  always  conceived 
the  just  praise  to  be,  that  they  adhered  stedfastly  to  a  belief  found- 
ed on  sincere  conviction,  not  that  they  anticipated  that  conviction 
by  pledging  themselves  beforehand  what  their  belief  should  be. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman's  martyrdom  is  of  a  superior  de- 
scription: it  not  only  professes  its  faith,  but  creates  it:  and  to  say 
the  truth,  it  does  require  a  faith,  rather  of  the  will  than  of  the  un- 
derstanding, to  believe  the  doctrine  which  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  has  promulgated  in  this  third  Resolution. 

*  See  Second  Resolution. 
28 


202  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

The  right  honourable  gentleman,  however,  has  not  done  full 
justice  to  his  own  Resolution.  The  pledge  which  it  contains  goes 
much  farther  than  he  describes.  It  is  not  we,  the  resolvers,  that 
are  pledged  by  it  to  the  creed  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman: 
it  pledges  all  mankind,  except  ourselves.  It  is  so  contrived,  that 
even  I  might  consistently  vote  for  it,  denying  as  I  do  every  syl- 
lable of  the  doctrine  which  it  contains.  Whatever  other  merit 
the  Resolution  may  want,  this  is  at  least  ingenious,  and  I  think  I 
may  venture  to  say  it  is  altogether  new  in  parliamentary  pro- 
ceeding. 

The  object  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  is  to  settle  the 
public  mind  on  a  question  on  which  there  is  a  great  division  of 
opinion.     There  are  various  modes  in  which  the  public  mind  may 
be  settled  in  matters  depending  on  positive  authority.     The  first 
is  a  proclamation  by  the  King,  where  the  subject  matter  is  one  to 
which  the  Royal  prerogative  is  of  itself  competent;  and  such  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  contends  this  matter  to  be.    A  second 
mode  is  by  Act  of  Parliament,  in  which  the  united  wisdom  of  the 
two  branches  of  the  Legislature  is  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of 
the  Crown.     A  third  mode  is  by  concurrent  resolution  of  the  two 
Houses  of  Parliament  declaring  their  joint  opinion.     A  fourth 
mode  is,  by  resolution  of  one  or  other  House  of  Parliament,  de- 
claring its  opinion  alone.     But  to  these  four  recognized  modes,  it 
remained  for  the  ingenuity  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  to 
add  a  fifth — that  of  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Commons,  de- 
claring, not  its  own  opinion,  but  that  of  the  litigants  themselves. 
Are  bank  notes  equivalent  to  the  legal  standard  coin  of  the 
realm?  This  is  the  question  which  divides  and  agitates  the  public 
opinion.     I,  says  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  will  devise  a 
mode  of  settling  this  question  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  public. 
By  advising  a  proclamation?  No. — By  bringing  a  bill  into  Par- 
liament? No. — By  proposing  to  declare  the  joint  opinion  of  both 
Houses,  or  the  separate  opinion  of  one?  No. — By  what  process, 
then?    Why,  simply  by  telling  the  disputants  that  they  are,  and 
have  been  all  along,  however  unconsciously,  agreed  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  their  variance;  and  gravely  resolving,  for  them,  respectively, 
an  unanimous  opinion.    This  is  the  very  judgment,  I  .should  imag- 
ine, which  Milton  ascribes  to  the  venerable  Anarch,  whom  he  rep- 
resents as  adjusting  the  disputes  of  the  conflicting  element: 

"  Chaos  umpire  sits, 
And  by  decision  more  embroils  the  fray." 

That  the  public  would  have  bowed  in  reverence  and  submission 
to  the  pronounced  opinion  of  the  House  of  Commons,  cannot  be 
doubted:  but  when  the  House  of  Commons  speaks,  not  as  a  judge 
but  as  an  interpreter,  it  can  hardly  expect  to  be  regarded  as  infal- 
lible by  those  whose  sentiments  it  professes  to  interpret. 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  203 

"  In  public  estimation,"  says  the  right  honourable  gentleman's 
Resolution,  "bank  notes  and  coin  are  equivalent."  Indeed? 
What  then  is  become  of  all  those  persons  who,  for  the  last  six 
months,  have  been  by  every  outward  and  visible  indication  evin- 
cing, maintaining,  and  inculcating  an  opinion  diametrically  oppo- 
site? Who  wrote  that  multitude  of  pamphlets,  with  the  recollec- 
tion of  which  one's  head  is  still  dizzy?  What  is  become  of  the 
whole  class  of  readers  of  those  pamphlets,  of  whom  to  my  cost  I 
was  one;  and  a  great  number  of  whom  at  least  were  convinced, 
like  me,  of  the  actual  depreciation  of  our  paper  currency  ?  Were 
these  writers  and  readers  no  part  of  the  public?  or  does  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  apprehend  that  his  arguments  must  have 
wrought  their  conversion  ?  Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that,  what- 
ever I  may  think  of  his  arguments,  the  authority  of  his  name 
would  not  have  great  weight  with  me  and  with  the  public.  There- 
fore do  I  regret  that,  if  he  does  not  think  fit  to  frame  his  Resolu- 
tion in  the  name  of  the  House  of  Commons,  he  should  not  at  least 
resolve  in  his  own  name  the  equivalency  which  he  is  so  bent  upon 
establishing.  A  Resolution,  importing  that  "  in  the  estimation  "  of 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  individually,  "  bank  notes  are 
equivalent  to  the  legal  coin  of  the  realm,"  though  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  say  it  would  carry  all  the  force  of  a  decision  of  the  legis- 
lature, would  yet  be  a  prodigious  comfort  even  to  those  who  are 
hardened  in  their  disbelief  of  that  equivalency;  as  it  would  show 
them  in  what  quarter  to  apply  when  they  wished  to  make  an  ex- 
change on  equal  terms. 

Nor  would  such  a  declaration  of  individual  opinion,  though  un- 
usual, be  wholly  without  example.  I  saw  the  other  day  an  ad- 
dress to  the  public  from  a  patriotic  lottery-office  keeper,  which  in 
truth  I  should  think  had  not  escaped  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man's notice,  since  his  third  resolution  is  nearly  a  transcript  of  it. 
This  worthy  distributor  of  the  favours  of  Fortune  disclaims,  in 
the  most  indignant  terms,  the  intention  to  "  make  any  distinction 
between  bank  notes  and  the  current  coin  of  the  realm."  He  is 
"  at  all  times  ready,"  he  says,  "  to  serve  the  public  with  tickets  or 
shares,  on  equal  terms  for  either."  Why  should  not  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  give  a  similar  demonstration  of  the  sincerity 
of  his  own  opinion?  It  is  obvious  that  if  the  lottery-office  keeper, 
instead  of  speaking  for  himself,  had  only  declared  that  "in  the 
estimation  of  the  public,"  bank  notes  and  coin  were  equal,  his  as- 
surance would  have  gone  for  but  little:  and  I  really  cannot  see 
why,  in  adopting,  as  be  has  done,  the  very  words  of  the  lottery 
advertisement,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  should  decline 
adopting  the  advertiser's  test  of  his  sincerity. 

I  must,  however,  observe,  that  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
carries  his  doctrine  somewhat  farther  than  his  prototype,  the  lot- 


204  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

tery  office-keeper.  The  advertisement  is  much  more  cautiously 
worded  than  the  Resolution.  The  advertisement  only  affirms  the 
equivalency  of  bank  notes  to  the  "  current"  coin  of  the  realm. 
The  Resolution  says  that  they  are  equivalent  to  the  "legal"  coin. 
Now  the  assertion  of  the  advertisement  may  be  perfectly  safe  from 
contradiction,  forasmuch  as  "current"  coin  of  the  realm,  there  is 
at  this  moment  none.  But  the  "legal"  coin  of  the  realm,  though 
driven  out  of  circulation,  is  capable  of  strict  definition.  The 
right  honourable  gentleman's  proposition  therefore  admits  of  a 
test,  which  the  advertiser's  does  not.  To  make  his  proposition 
perfect,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  ought  to  define  both  those 
things  which  he  declares  -to  be  equivalent  to  each  other.  Bank 
notes  he  has  defined  in  his  second  Resolution:  they  are  "  engage- 
ments to  pay  certain  sums  of  money  in  the  legal  coin  of  this  king- 
dom."    But  he  has  omitted  to  define  the  "  legal  coin." 

With  his  leave,  I  will  venture  to  remind  him  that  one  pound  in 
sterling  money  of  this  realm,  is  either  If  of  a  guinea,  weighing 
not  less  than  5dwts-  8%rs-  standard  fineness;  or  it  is  If  of  a  lb.  of 
standard  silver.  Does  the  right  honourable  gentleman  object  to 
either  of  those  definitions?  If  not,  does  he  maintain  his  proposi- 
tion of  equivalency?  Does  he  maintain  that  a  one-pound  note  is 
equivalent  to  If  of  a  lawful  guinea,  or  to  ff  of  a  lb.  of  standard 
silver?  Does  he  not  know  that  a  guinea  is  intrinsically  worth  not 
a  one-pound  note,  with  one  shilling  in  addition,  but  with  the  ad- 
dition of  four  or  five  shillings,  at  the  present  moment? — and  that 
so  far  from  purchasing  nearly  the  third  part  of  a  lb.  of  standard 
silver,  a  bank  note  of  one  pound  would  now  purchase  little  more 
than  the  fourth  part  of  it? 

But  the  right  honourable  gentleman  warns  us,  that  we  overlook 
the  force  and  real  meaning  of  the  word  "  legal  "  as  employed 
in  his  Resolution.  He  alludes  not  to  the  laws  which  have  fixed 
the  standard,  and  which  ensure  the  weight  and  purity  of  our 
coin;  but  to  those  which  provide  by  wholesome  penalties  against 
the  influence  of  its  real  upon  its  denominative  value.  The  gold 
of  a  guinea  may  be  worth  what  we  will;  the  Resolution  applies 
only  to  the  gold  in  a  guinea.  It  does  not  say  that  a  bank  note  is 
worth  as  much  as  a  guinea.  It  says  only  that  the  guinea  can  pass 
for  no  more  than  the  bank  note.  It  ties  the  living  to  the  dead, 
and  then  pronounces  them  equal  to  each  other.  The  gold  which 
is  necessary  to  constitute  a  guinea,  may  be  worth  twenty-six  or 
twenty-seven  shillings.  The  right  honourable  gentleman's  busi- 
ness with  it  commences  only  when  it  has  received  the  stamp  and 
sanction  of  the  Sovereign.  It  is  then  that,  degraded  by  this  dis- 
tinction, and  restricted  by  this  guarantee,  it  looses  about  a  fifth 
of  its  value,  and  becomes  worth  only  a  one-pound  note  and  one 
chilling. 


THE  BULLION   COMMITTEE.  205 

Be  it  so.  This  then  may  be  the  state  of  the  law:  but  how- 
does  this  prove  "  public  estimation?"  If  the  Resolution  had  pur- 
ported merely  that  by  law  the  guinea  could  pass  for  no  more  than 
twenty-one  shillings,  perhaps  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
may  have  the  law  on  his  side.  But  this  proposition  he  had  the 
sagacity  to  see  would  not  answer  his  purpose.  It  would  do  no- 
thing for  the  bank  note.  It  would  settle  the  proportion  between 
gold  and  silver  coin;  but  not  between  either  of  those  metals  and 
bank  paper.  Bank  paper,  until  it  is  made  the  paper  of  the  state, 
and  a  legal  tender  (which  as  yet  happily  it  is  not,)  must  depend 
upon  confidence  for  its  value;  and  I  am  afraid  that  confidence 
may  rather  be  impaired  than  restored  by  such  a  Resolution  as  the 
right  honourable  gentleman's. 

There  is,  however,  yet  one  addition,  which  qualifies  the  right 
honourable  gentleman's  proposition.  Bank  notes  are  not  only 
"equivalent  to  legal  coin,"  it  seems,  but  are  "  generally  accepted 
as  such;"  which  to  be  sure  it  is  natural  to  expect  they  should  be, 
if  equivalent.  They  are  so  accepted,  however,  not  in  all  transac- 
tions. No — only  in  "  transactions  to  which  such  coin  is  legally 
applicable."  There  are  transactions,  then,  it  seems,  in  which 
they  are  not  accepted  as  equivalent?  Yes;  but  those  transactions 
are  not  legal  ones.  Is  the  purchase  of  gold  bullion  a  legal  trans- 
action ?  I  presume  it  is.  A  pound  of  gold  bullion  is  at  this  mo- 
ment worth  about  581.  16s.  in  bank  notes:  5S/.  16s.  in  guineas, 
according  to  their  current  value,  makes  fifty-six  guineas.  Now 
forty-four  and  a  half  of  these  guineas,  we  know,  weigh  exactly 
one  pound.  The  right  honourable  gentleman,  therefore,  means 
gravely  to  affirm  that  there  exist  persons  who  will  with  equal 
readiness  give  58/.  16.?.  in  bank  notes,  or  fifty-six  golden  guineas, 
in  payment  for  a  commodity  which  is  intrinsically  worth  exactly 
forty-four  guineas  and  a-half.  It  warms  one's  heart  to  hear  such 
heroic  instances  of  more  than  Roman  virtue:  but  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  doubt  whether  they  can  be  truly  stated  to  be  as  "  gene- 
ral," as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  supposes.  I  doubt 
whether  even  the  patiotic  lottery-man,  from  whom  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman  has  borrowed  his  third  Resolution,  would  make 
such  a  sacrifice  as  this  to  the  laws  of  his  country.  I  doubt 
whether  the  right  honourable  gentleman  himself  does  not  stand 
the  single  instance  of  such  striking  self-devotion:  and  would 
again  submit,  to  him,  therefore,  whether  his  third  Resolution,  in- 
stead of  affirming  any  thing  about  the  public,  ought  not  to  run 
singly  in  his  own  name. 

But,  after  all,  is  the  right  honourable  gentleman  sure  that  he  is 
prepared  to  define  exactly,  at  this  moment,  the  legality  or  illegal- 
ity of  interchanging  guineas  and  bank  notes,  at  any  other  than  the 
nominal  current  value?    What  cognizance  does  the  law  take  of 

T 


206  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

the  rate  at  which  bank  notes  shall  pass  ?  Is  there  any  law  which 
touches  this  matter?  If  any  body  had  such  a  fancy  for  bank 
notes,  and  differed  so  entirely  from  the  Bullion  Committee,  and 
from  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  as  to  think  them  not  only 
not  depreciated  in  respect  to  coin,  but  as  worth  being  bought  up 
in  coin  at  a  premium;  is  there  any  law  which  would  prevent  him 
from  gratifying  his  taste  in  this  particular?  If  for  more,  might  he 
not  also  buy  them  for  less,  than  their  nominal  value?  Is  there 
any  law  to  prevent  that?  The  man  who  has  been  convicted,  and 
is  now  expecting  judgment  for  buying  guineas  at  a  premium, 
might  he  not  justly  aver  that  he  had  only  sold  bank  notes  at  a 
loss?  Is  there  any  law  which  forbids  that?  The  right  honoura- 
ble gentleman  may  tell  me,  that  this  question  is  at  this  very  mo- 
ment before  the  judges  of  the  land,  by  whose  determination  the 
conviction  to  which  I  have  referred,  will  be  either  confirmed  or 
reversed.  And  so  I  tell  the  right  honourable  gentleman;  and 
from  that  very  circumstance,  from  the  law  on  that  subject  being 
in  such  a  state  of  uncertainty  as  to  require  a  reference  to  the 
judges,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  unseemly,  and  must  be  most  unsatis- 
factory, for  the  House  of  Commons  to  assume  the  law  to  be  such 
as  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  Resolution  declares  it. 

But,  supposing  the  declaration  of  the  law  by  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman's  Resolution  to  be  correct,  how  does  it  bear  out 
his  assertions  as  to"  public  estimation?" — Does  he  not  know — is 
it  not  notorious — has  it  not  been  admitted  in  the  course  of  this 
debate — that  in  one  part  of  the  United  Kingdom,  at  least  in  Ire- 
land, so  far  are  bank  notes  from  being  "  equivalent  to  the  legal 
coin  in  the  public  estimation,"  that  a  premium  is  openly  given 
for  guineas?  Does  the  right  honourable  gentleman  forget,  that 
the  House  of  Commons  to  which  he  proposes  his  Resolution,  is 
the  House  of  Commons  of  Ireland  as  well  as  of  Great  Britain? 
And  can  he  conceive  a  proceeding  more  likely  to  bring  that 
House  of  Commons  into  contempt  with  the  people  of  Ireland, 
than  that,  with  the  perfect  knowledge  which  we  have  that  they 
are  every  day  exchanging  bank  notes  against  guineas  at  a  discount, 
we  should  come  to  a  Resolution  that — not  in  our  estimation,  but 
in  theirs — bank  notes  and  guineas  are  equivalent? 

When  Buonaparte,  not  long  ago,  was  desirous  of  reconciling 
the  nations  under  his  dominion  to  the  privations  resulting  from 
the  exclusion  of  all  colonial  produce,  he  published  an  edict,  which 
commenced  in  something  like  the  following  manner: — "Whereas 
sugar  made  from  beet-root  or  the  maple-tree  is  infinitely  prefera- 
ble to  that  of  the  sugar-cane...."  and  then  proceeded  to  denounce 
penalties  against  those  who  should  persist  in  the  use  of  the  infe- 
rior commodity.  The  denunciation  might  be  more  effectual  than 
the  right  honourable  gentleman's  Resolution;  but  the  preamble 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  207 

did  not  go  near  so  far;  for  though  it  asserted  the  superiority  of 
the  maple  and  beet-root  sugar,  it  rested  that  assertion  merely  on 
the  authority  of  the  state,  and  did  not  pretend  to  sanction  it  by 
"  public  estimation." 

When  Galileo  first  promulgated  the  doctrine  that  the  earth 
turned  round  the  sun,  and  that  the  sun  remained  stationary  in  the 
centre  of  the  universe,  the  holy  fathers  of  the  Inquisition  took 
alarm  at  so  daring  an  innovation,  and  forthwith  declared  the  first 
of  these  propositions  to  be  false  and  heretical,  and  the  other  to  be 
erroneous  in  point  of  faith.  The  Holy  Office  "pledged  itself  to 
believe "  that  the  earth  was  stationary  and  the  sun  moveable. 
This  pledge  had  little  effect  in  changing  the  natural  course  of 
things:  the  sun  and  the  earth  continued,  in  spite  of  it,  to  preserve 
their  accustomed  relations  to  each  other,  just  as  the  coin  and  the 
bank  note  will,  in  spite  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  Res- 
olution. 

The  reverend  fathers,  indeed,  had  the  advantage  of  being  ena- 
bled to  call  in  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm,  to  enforce  the  accept- 
ance of  their  doctrines.  I  confess,  I  am  not  wholly  without  ap- 
prehension that  some  of  the  zealous  advocates  for  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman's  doctrine  may  have  it  in  contemplation  to 
employ  similar  means  of  proselytism.  There  is  something  omin- 
ous in  that  mixture  of  law  and  opinion,  which  pervades  the  right 
honourable  gentleman's  Resolution.  The  business  of  law  is  with 
conduct;  but  when  it  is  put  forward  to  influence  opinion,  pains 
and  penalties  are  seldom  far  behind.  I  like  but  little  the  period 
of  our  history,  to  which  my  honourable  and  learned  friend,  the 
Attorney-General,  was  obliged  to  go  back  to  find  a  penal  statute 
for  settling  opinions  upon  the  value  of  money — that  statute  upon 
which  the  late  convictions  have  taken  place,  and  upon  the  appli- 
cability of  which  to  the  present  times  the  Judges  are  now  delib- 
erating. This  statute  was  passed  at  a  period  when  our  coin  had 
been  debased,  in  the  course  of  three  years,  considerably  upwards 
of  £200  per  cent. — and  when  the  total  debasement,  as  compared 
with  the  original  standard,  was  not  less  than  £355  per  cent.  The 
consequence  of  this  debasement,  as  stated  by  Lord  Liverpool, 
was,  that  merchants  and  tradesmen  increased  the  price  of  every 
article  which  they  had  to  sell.  To  counteract  this  effect,  Govern- 
ment tried  every  method  to  keep  up  the  value  of  the  debased 
coin;  prices  were  set  on  all  the  necessary  articles  of  consumption; 
laws  were  passed  for  regulating  the  manner  of  buying  and  selling; 
the  law  against  regraters,  forcstallers,  and  engrossers,  since  re- 
pealed, was  passed  on  that  occasion.  Amongst  those  admirable 
and  judicious  efforts  of  wholesome  and  enlightened  legislation, 
was  enacted  the  law  for  inflicting  penalties  on  those  who  should 
"  exchange  any  coined  gold  or  coined  silver  at  a   greater  value 


208  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

than  the  same  was  or  should  be  declared,  by  His  Majesty's  procla- 
mation, to  be  current  for  within  his  dominions." 

Such  is  the  law  which,  according  to  the  right  honourable  gen- 
tleman, secures  the  equivalency  of  the  different  sorts  of  our  cur- 
rency. Such  is  the  shelf  from  which  that  law  has  been  taken 
down  and  brought  into  use  on  the  present  auspicious  occasion:  a 
law  passed  at  a  time  which  the  late  Lord  Liverpool  forcibly  de- 
scribes as  a  "  period  of  convulsion  in  our  monetary  system,"  and 
in  company  with  laws  which  have  since  been  repealed  as  a  dis- 
grace to  the  statute  book.  Faulty,  however,  as  our  legislation  ap- 
pears to  have  been  at  the  period  to  which  we  are  referring,  it  at 
least  did  not  fall  into  the  absurdity  of  declaring  such  laws  to  be 
the  opinions  of  the  people.  If  the  right  honourable  gentleman  is 
determined  to  force  opinions  to  conform  to  his  law,  he  must  come 
down  a  few  years  later  in  our  history.  He  must  pass  from  the 
reign  of  Edward  the  Vlth,  to  that  of  Queen  Mary,  to  find  the 
most  approved  method  of  applying  the  operation  of  law  to  the 
reformation  of  speculative  opinions. 

Even  in  times,  however,  of  such  ignorance,  and  such  licentious 
theory,  in  respect  to  the  value  of  money,  there  were  not  wanting 
in  one  part  of  this  island  shrewder  spirits,  who  saw  the  errors  into 
which  the  English  Government  were  running,  and  determined  to 
guard  against  their  effects,  at  least  upon  themselves.  In  the  year 
1529,  it  is  related  in  a  note  to  Lord  Liverpool's  Treatise,  "  Gavin 
Dunbar,  Bishop  of  Aberdeen,  in  a  contract  with  William  Suther- 
land, of  Duffus,  stipulated,  that  '  if  it  should  happen  that  the 
money  of  Scotland,  or  of  any  other  kingdom,  which  passes  in 
Scotland,  be  raised  to  a  higher  price  than  it  is  now  taken  in  pay- 
ment for,  whereby  the  reverend  father,  his  heirs  or  assigns,  be 
made  poorer  or  in  a  worse  condition,  he  the  said  William  Suther- 
land should  pay  to  the  possessors  (whoever  they  may  be)  of  the 
annual  rent  reserved  therein,  for  every  mark  of  thirty-two  pen- 
nies, one  ounce  of  pure  silver  of  certain  fineness,  or  else  its  true 
value  in  the  usual  money  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland.'  "  This 
contract  took  place  about  twenty  years  before  the  statute  of  Ed- 
ward VI.  If  that  statute  shall  be  revived  and  acted  upon,  and  if 
the  doctrine  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  Resolutions  shall 
be  sanctioned  by  Parliament,  it  requires  no  great  stretch  of  appre- 
hension to  foresee  that  men  will,  ere  long,  endeavour  to  guard 
themselves  against  the  effects  of  such  a  system  by  resorting  to 
contracts  of  a  similar  nature. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  third 
Resolution.  I  will  only  again  say,  that  if  any  man  had  mention- 
ed it  to  me  out  of  this  House  as  a  proposition  which  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  intended  to  offer  for  our  acceptance,  I 
should  have  utterly  disbelieved  him:  I  should  have  considered 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  209 

such  a  rumour  as  a  mere  device  on  the  part  of  his  opponents,  to 
place  in  the  strongest  light  imaginable  the  absurdity  to  which,  if 
pushed  to  all  their  consequences,  the  right  honourable  gentleman's 
arguments  were  capable  of  going. 

Passing  over  the  statistical  Resolutions,  from  the  fourth  to  the 
fourteenth  inclusive,  I  come  now  to  the  fifteenth,  which  contains 
the  right  honourable  gentleman's  doctrine  of  exchanges.* 

This  Resolution  partakes,  in  a  very  striking  degree,  of  the 
faults  which  I  had  occasion  to  remark  upon  in  the  first  of  the  se- 
ries to  which  it  belongs.  From  the  vague  and  imperfect  manner 
in  which  it  is  expressed,  the  proposition  intended  to  be  conveyed 
by  it  is  rather  insinuated  than  affirmed.  The  right  honourable 
gentleman  does  not  distinctly  deny  that  the  state  of  our  currency 
has  any  influence  on  the  foreign  exchanges,  or  on  the  price  of 
bullion;  at  the  same  time,  he  certainly  does  not  admit  that  it  has 
any  such  influence.  He  only  asserts  that  there  are  other  causes 
"  sufficient  to  account  for  the  unfavourable  state  of  the  exchange, 
and  the  high  price  of  bullion,  without  any  change  in"  (what  he 
calls)  "the  internal  value  of  our  currency." 

Now  it  cannot  escape  so  accurate  an  understanding  as  that  of 
the  right  honourable  gentleman,  that  this  mode  of  stating  his  ar- 
gument, is  not  an  answer  to  the  main  points  in  dispute,  but  an 
evasion  of  them.  The  Bullion  Report  asserts  that  our  paper  cur- 
rency is  depreciated,  and  that  the  depreciation  of  our  currency 
has  raised  the  price  of  gold,  and  turned  and  kept  the  foreign 
exchanges  against  us.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  replies, 
not  by  denying  both  these  assertions,  but  by  affirming  with 
respect  to  the  latter,  that  the  imputed  consequences  may  have 
been  produced  by  other  causes,  without  the  existence  of  the  cause 
specifically  assigned  for  them. 

We  know,  indeed,  from  the  preceding  part  of  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman's  argument,  that  he  does  deny  the  depreciation 
of  our  currency.  So  far  he  is  perfectly  intelligible.  But  as  to 
the  second  proposition,  "  that  the  depreciated  currency  has  occa- 
sioned the  rise  in  the  price  of  bullion  and  the  unfavourableness 
of  the  foreign  exchanges,"  are  we  to  understand  him  as  saying, 
that  a  depreciated  currency  would  not  have  those  effects?  or 
only,  that  as  our  currency  is  not  depreciated,  such  effects  cannot 
in  this  instance  be  attributable  to  that  cause? 

If  he  admits  that  such  would  be  the  natural  effects  of  a  depre- 
ciated currency,  admitting  at  the  same  time  (as  he  does)  that  such 
effects  do  exist,  the  whole  of  his  argument  is  destroyed  by  his 
own  admissions.  The  utmost  advantage  that  he  could  then  de- 
rive, even  from  the  undisputed  admission  of  all  the  facts  enumer- 

*  Sec  Res.  15. 

29  t* 


210  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

ated  in  his  statistical  Resolutions — of  his  prices  of  stocks,  and 
prices  of  corn,  his  exports  and  imports,  and  revenue  and  expendi- 
ture— would  be  to  show  that  there  are  other  causes  which  may 
enter  for  something  into  the  degree  of  the  rise  in  the  price  of  bul- 
lion, and  into  the  degree  of  the  unfavourableness  of  the  exchange, 
which  nobody  denies. 

But  to  acknowledge  the  tendency  of  a  depreciated  currency  to 
produce  certain  effects,  to  acknowledge  these  effects  to  have  been 
produced  to  an  extent,  and  to  have  continued  for  a  length  of  time, 
unexampled  in  the  history  of  the  country, — and  then  to  expect 
that  upon  the  mere  dictum  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  his 
adversaries  in  the  argument  shall  consent  to  ascribe  those  effects 
wholly  to  other  causes,  of  which  they  deny  the  sufficiency,  alto- 
gether excluding  the  operation  of  that  one,  the  efficacy  of  which 
he  himself  admits,  is  to  reckon  upon  a  degree  of  ductility  in 
those  with  whom  he  argues,  which  even  the  right  honourable  gen- 
tleman's authority  is  not  entitled  to  command. 

On  the  other  hand,  does  the  right  honourable  gentleman  con- 
tend, that  the  depreciation  of  our  currency,  even  if  it  existed, 
would  not  affect  the  exchange?  To  argue  that  it  would  not  affect 
the  price  of  bullion  in  that  currency,  is  certainly  more  than  he 
can  venture.  But  it  has  been  contended  by  others  who  take  the 
same  side  with  him,  that  depreciation  "  of  internal  value"  in  the 
currency  of  a  country  has  no  tendency  to  alter  the  foreign  ex- 
change.    Is  this  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  meaning? 

By  "  internal  value,"  I  now  understand  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  to  signify  not  "  intrinsic  value,"  as  I  was  at  first  in- 
clined to  suppose,  but  value  in  internal  or  domestic  currency,  as 
opposed  to  value  abroad.  The  proposition,  then,  of  those  who 
push  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  argument  to  its  extent  is, 
that  the  currency  of  a  country  may  be  depreciated  to  an  indefinite 
degree,  and  yet,  if  the  inhabitants  of  that  country  continue,  no 
matter  whether  voluntarily  or  by  legal  compulsion,  to  receive  that 
depreciated  currency  at  its  full  nominal  value,  the  foreigner  has 
no  business  with  it,  and  the  foreign  exchange  would  not  exhibit 
any  symptom  of  being  affected  by  it.  The  very  definition  of  ex- 
change, about  which  I  apprehend  there  is  no  dispute,  is  of  itself 
sufficient  to  confute  this  doctrine.  The  par  of  exchange  between 
any  two  countries,  being  an  equal  quantity  of  precious  metal  in 
the  respective  currencies  of  those  countries,  how  is  it  possible, 
that  if,  by  any  process,  the  currency  of  one  of  those  countries 
shall  cease  to  contain  or  to  represent  that  quantity  of  precious  metal 
which  it  did  represent  or  contain  when  the  par  of  exchange  with 
the  other  country  was  assigned — the  currency  of  that  other  coun- 
try remaining  precisely  the  same — there  should  not  take  place  a 
proportionate  variation  in  the  rate  of  the  exchange  ?    To  say  that 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  211 

the  rate  of  exchange  will  continue  unaltered,  when  one  of  the  cur- 
rencies between  which  the  comparison  is  made  has  lost  part  of  its 
value,  is  to  say,  in  other  words,  that  an  equation  is  not  destroyed 
by  a  change  in  the  value  of  one  of  its  terms. 

We  should  be  sufficiently  alive  to  the  fallacy  of  such  a  doctrine, 
if  applied  to  the  currency  of  other  countries.  In  the  edict  lately 
published  in  Austria,  which  has  been  referred  to  more  than  once 
in  the  course  of  these  debates,  while  a  gradual  depreciation, 
amounting  in  the  end  to  no  less  than  £400  per  cent,  is  acknowl- 
edged, and  the  paper  directed  to  be  current  henceforth  at  £400 
per  cent,  below  its  nominal  value;  sundry  excellent  reasons  are 
given  why,  in  Austria,  in  the  particular  circumstances  of  that 
country,  this  depreciation  ought  to  occasion  no  manner  of  alarm; 
and  especially  why  foreigners  ought  not  to  consider  it  as  vitiating 
or  confounding  the  transactions  of  exchange.  The  foreign  creditors 
of  Austria,  however,  probably  entertain  a  very  different  opinion: 
and  it  is  a  curious  fact,  which  has  been  vouched  to  me  on  what  I 
believe  to  be  unquestionable  authority,  that  even  before  the  Aus- 
trian paper  money  was  depreciated  to  the  present  extravagant  de- 
gree, the  monied  men  on  the  continent,  who  were  engaged  in  loans 
to  the  Emperor,  were  in  the  habit  of  stipulating  that  those  loans, 
if  repaid  any  where  else  than  at  Hamburgh  or  at  Amsterdam, 
should  be  repaid,  not  in  the  currency  of  Austria,  or  of  any  other 
country,  according  to  its  denomination,  but  in  specific  quantities 
of  gold  or  silver.  And  why  this  exception  in  favour  of  Ham- 
burgh and  Amsterdam?  For  a  reason  which  at  once  explains  the 
nature  of  exchange,  and  the  true  principles  of  value  in  money, 
namely,  that  at  the  Banks  of  Hamburgh  and  Amsterdam,  all  pay- 
ments are  made,  not  in  reference  to  coins  of  any  country  or  any 
denomination,  but  by  the  transfer  from  the  debtor  to  the  creditor 
of  a  specific  quantity  of  bullion. 

Can  we  really  flatter  ourselves,  then,  that  the  currency  of  this 
kingdom  might  be  depreciated  with  impunity  so  far  as  relates  to 
transactions  with  foreign  countries?  If  a  bill  upon  England  for 
46/.  14s.  6d.  would  heretofore  have  purchased,  on  the  exchange  of 
Hamburgh  or  Amsterdam,  a  credit  on  those  Banks  for  a  pound 
of  gold  bullion,  and  if  a  pound  of  gold  bullion  cannot  now  be  pur- 
chased in  England  for  less  than  58/.  in  English  currency,  we  can 
imagine  that,  nevertheless,  the  bill  upon  England  for  46/.  14*.  6c?. 
will  still  purchase  a  pound  of  gold  at  Hamburgh  or  Amsterdam? 
Yet  this  is,  in  fact,  the  proposition  of  those  who  contend  that  an  al- 
teration in  the  value  of  the  internal  currency  of  a  country  does  not 
proportionably  affect  the  foreign  exchange. 

But  while  this  is  the  argument  of  many  who  have  taken  part 
in  the  debate — whilst  it  is  covertly,  though  not  avowedly,  the  ar- 
gument of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  fifteenth  Resolution 


212  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

— it  is  not  the  argument  of  my  right  honourable  friend  the  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer,  who  has  admitted  the  influence  of  the 
internal  currency  of  a  country  upon  its  foreign  exchanges,  by  ad- 
mitting that  a  diminution  in  the  quantity  of  our  paper  would  tend 
to  turn  the  exchanges  in  our  favour.  Does  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  agree  in  this  admission,  or  differ  from  it?  If  he  differs, 
I  refer  him  for  conviction  to  my  right  honourable  friend:  if  he 
agrees,  there,  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  to  which  this  ad- 
mission leads — that  the  unfavourableness  of  the  exchange,  which 
would  be,  in  part  at  least,  cured  by  a  diminution  in  the  amount, 
and  consequent  rise  in  the  value  of  our  paper  currency,  is,  in  part 
at  least,  occasioned  by  the  excess  and  consequent  depreciation 
of  it. 

What  then  becomes  of  the  assertion  of  the  right  honourable 
gentleman's  fifteenth  Resolution,  whichever  sense  we  assign  to  it? 
If  it  is  meant  to  deny  the  connexion  of  internal  currency  with 
foreign  exchange,  can  the  House  consent  to  adopt  a  vote  so  di- 
rectly at  variance  with  the  fact?  If,  admitting  that  connexion,  it 
is  meant  only  to  deny  its  effect  now,  why,  I  should  be  glad  to 
know,  is  the  present  time  to  afford  an  exception  to  an  universal 
rule  ?  What  is  there  now  to  suspend  the  operation  of  principles, 
not  dependent  upon  circumstances,  but  inherent  in  the  nature  of 
things?  There  is  a  great  stagnation  of  commerce  it  is  true,  but 
that  stagnation  of  commerce  is  not  peculiar  to  this  country.  The 
continent  shares  largely  in  all  the  distress  which  the  decrees  of 
the  tyrant  of  the  continent  produce;  and  yet  it  is  in  comparison 
with  the  continent  that  the  exchanges  are  in  our  disfavour.  True, 
we  are  carrying  on  an  expensive  and  extended  war;  but  the  ex- 
changes have  been  permanently  against  us  in  peace  as  well  as  in 
war,  when  the  same  cause,  a  depreciated  currency,  has  operated 
to  produce  that  effect.  In  1696,  a  period  of  war,  the  deteriora- 
tion of  our  silver,  then  our  standard  coin — in  1773,  a  time  of 
peace,  the  deterioration  of  our  gold  coin,  were  indicated  alike  by 
the  long  continued  unfavourableness  of  the  foreign  exchanges. 
In  both  instances  the  reformation  of  the  coin  remedied  the  evil. 
What  the  deterioration  of  coin  occasioned  in  those  instances,  the 
depreciation  of  paper  has  occasioned  now.  The  coin  had  then 
ceased  to  contain,  as  the  paper  has  now  ceased  to  represent,  the 
quantity  of  precious  metal  implied  by  its  denomination.  Foreign 
countries  estimated  the  coin  then  as  they  do  the  paper  now,  not 
by  what  it  is  called,  but  by  what  it  would  exchange  for  in  those 
commodities — gold  and  silver — which  are,  by  the  consent  and  prac- 
tice of  mankind,  the  common  measures  of  all  marketable  value. 

However  gentlemen  may  endeavour  to  disguise  and  perplex 
this  simple  view  of  the  question,  it  is,  after  all,  that  by  which  it 
must  be  decided.     If  this  be  not  the  test,  there  is  no  other.     If 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  213 

gold  and  silver  have  ceased  to  be  the  common  measures  of  the 
value  of  other  commodities,  and  weight  and  fineness  combined  have 
ceased  to  be  the  standard  of  value  in  gold  and  silver,  there  is  no 
more  to  be  said:  but  in  that  case,  instead  of  these  Resolutions,  let 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  come  forward  boldly  at  once  with 
an  assertion,  not  merely  that  paper  is  equivalent  to  the  precious 
metals,  but  that  it  has  altogether  superseded  them. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  same  standard  of  value  remains,  let 
not  the  right  honourable  gentleman  attempt  to  draw  a  veil  over 
it.  In  all  our  departures  from  it,  let  us  fairly  own  that  we  are 
departing  from  it — by  necessity,  if  you  please,  but  with  a  resolu- 
tion of  returning  to  it  again.  Let  us  not,  like  men  who,  when 
hurried  down  a  rapid  stream,  fancy  that  the  shores  are  flying 
from  them — 

"  terragque  urbesque  recedunt ;" 

let  us  not  conceive  that,  by  some  strange  revolution  in  the  phys- 
ical world,  the  precious  metals  are  retreating  beyond  our  reach; 
when  it  is,  in  fact,  only  by  a  rapid  depreciation  that  our  currency 
is  leaving  them  behind.  Neither  let  us  suppose  that  we  have  al- 
ready gone  down  so  far,  that  to  reascend  the  stream  is  impossible 
— that, 

"  Should  we  wade  no  more, 
Returning  were  as  tedious  as  go  o'er." 

A  very  little  firmness,  a  very  little  sacrifice,  might  at  present 
enable  us  to  retrace  our  course.  The  half  of  the  ingenuity  which 
is  employed  in  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  Resolutions  to 
gloss  over  our  situation,  might  suffice  to  find  a  remedy  for  it. 

It  is  asked — shall  we  attempt  this  in  time  of  war?  Can  we  at- 
tempt it  without  abandoning  our  present  military  system,  with 
all  its  hopes  and  all  its  glories?  Undoubtedly,  I  think,  we  can.  I 
never  can  believe  of  this  mighty  empire,  that  it  has  not  sufficient 
energy  in  itself  at  once  to  right  whatever  may  be  amiss  in  its 
own  internal  situation,  and  to  maintain  its  accustomed  place  and 
movement  in  the  system  of  the  world. 

But,  it  is  said,  we  are  only  going  on  in  the  course  in  which 
greater  authorities  have  led  the  way;  Mr.  Pitt  had  made  up  his 
mind  to  this  depreciation  of  our  currency.  "He  contrived  it," 
says  one  honourable  gentleman.  "He  could  not  avoid  foreseeing 
it,"  says  my  right  honourable  friend  (the  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer.) 

First,  the  inconveniencies  which  now  result  from  that  deprecia- 
tion, and  which  constitute  the  proof  of  it,  were  not  felt  in  Mr. 
Pitt's  time.  Neither  could  they  possibly  be  foreseen  by  Mr. 
Pitt,  if  they  in  fact  arise  only  from  the  causes  to  which  my  right 
honourable  friend  and  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  fifteenth 


214  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

Resolution  ascribe  them:  Mr.  Pitt  certainly  could  not  foresee  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  The  war,  indeed,  raged  in  his  life- 
time with  not  less  violence  than  since;  but  yet  in  the  very  hottest 
and  most  disastrous  part  of  the  war,  at  the  moment  of  the  greatest 
public  alarm  and  calamity,  the  exchanges  were  in  our  favour,  and 
the  price  of  gold  did  not  materially  rise.  He  therefore  did  not 
witness  any  of  those  symptoms  which  have  awakened  anxiety, 
and  led  to  investigation  on  the  present  occasion. 

Further,  we  have  the  testimony  of  my  honourable  friend  op- 
posite to  me,  (Mr.  Wilberforce,)  that  in  the  year  1802,  when  the 
probable  tendency  of  unredeemable  bank  paper  to  excessive  issue, 
and  consequent  depreciation,  became  a  subject  of  alarm  to  some 
men  of  great  ability  in  financial  matters — we  have,  I  say,  that 
most  satisfactory  testimony,  that  Mr.  Pitt  at  that  time  professed 
his  entire  agreement  in  the  principles  laid  down  in  a  very  able 
publication  of  the  honourable  gentleman  who  preceded  me  in  this 
night's  debate  (Mr.  H.  Thornton,)  which  I  presume  every  man 
who  has  attended  to  this  question,  has  read.  And  what  are  those 
principles? — Why,  these — 

"  It  is  the  maintenance  of  our  general  exchanges  "  (says  Mr. 
Thornton,)  "  or,  in  other  words,  it  is  the  agreement  of  the  mint 
price  with  the  bullion  price  of  gold,  which  seems  to  be  the  true 
proof  that  the  circulating  paper  is  not  depreciated." 

If  these  are  the  principles  which  Mr.  Pitt  sanctioned,  what 
pretence  is  there  for  saying  that  he  foresaw  the  present  state  of 
things  ?  or  that,  if  he  had  lived  to  see  it,  he  would  now  have  as- 
serted our  circulating  paper  to  be  in  an  undepreciated  state  ?  Are 
our  "  general  exchanges  "  now  "  maintained  ? "  "  Does  the  bullion 
price  of  gold  "  now  "agree  with  the  mint  price?"  Are  not,  on 
the  contrary,  the  unfavourable  exchanges,  and  the  high  price  of 
bullion,  the  very  particulars  which  are  cited  as  affording  the  most 
irrefragable  proof  of  a  depreciation?  If  the  absence  of  these 
criteria  at  that  time  was  conclusive  one  way,  must  not  the  pres- 
ence of  them  be  now  admitted  to  be  conclusive  the  other?  If 
Mr.  Pitt  was  then  satisfied  that  all  was  right  because  these  symp- 
toms had  not  appeared,  is  it  fair  to  infer,  that  he  would  have  been 
equally  satisfied  now,  when  they  are  seen  in  so  aggravated  a  de- 
gree?   Is  not  the  fair  inference  directly  the  contrary? 

Nor  is  it  an  unimportant  evidence  of  Mr.  Pitt's  general  view 
of  this  subject,  that  the  Letter  of  Lord  Liverpool  to  the  King 
was  the  result  of  an  investigation  commenced  in  Mr.  Pitt's  first 
administration  in  1798,  and  concluded  in  the  year  1805,  when 
he  was  again  minister  of  the  country.  In  that  letter,  not  only 
are  all  the  principles  of  our  money  system  distinctly  and  ably 
expounded,  according  to  the  authority  and  the  practice  of  the 


THE  BULLION  COMMITTEE.  215 

best  times;  but,  with  respect  to  the  system  of  our  paper  cur- 
rency, the  danger  of  its  being  carried  to  excess,  and  the  necessity 
of  a  parliamentary  revision  of  it,  are  stated  in  a  manner  which 
shows  with  how  much  attention,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  those  days,  that  system  required  to  be  watched. 

But  if  Mr.  Pitt  had  happily  been  still  alive,  what  remedy 
would  he  have  applied  to  this  evil  ?  Far  be  it  from  me  to  pre- 
sume on  this  or  on  any  other  occasion  to  usurp  the  authority  of 
his  name,  or  to  employ  it  for  any  purpose,  which  is  not  warrant- 
ed by  his  recorded  opinions.  But  that  he  would  have  applied 
some  remedy — that  he  would  not  have  been  contented  to  let  the 
evil  take  its  course,  if  there  were  in  human  wisdom  the  means 
of  checking  it — that  he  would  not  have  sought  to  reconcile  delu- 
sion with  credit,  and  to  palliate  a  departure  from  principles  by  a 
denial  of  the  principles  themselves;  every  man  who  remembers 
his  characteristic  firmness,  who  recollects  the  difficulties  which  he 
had  to  combat,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  combated  and  over- 
came them,  will,  I  think,  be  ready  to  acknowledge. 

If  I  am  asked  what  remedy  I  would  myself  apply,  I  again  say, 
as  I  have  said  before,  that  it  must  rest  with  the  Executive  Gov- 
ernment to  propose,  as  they  alone  can  advantageously  carry  into 
effect,  any  measure  of  practical  benefit.  But  I  have  no  difficulty 
in  offering  one  suggestion,  which  has  indeed  been  in  some  degree 
anticipated  in  the  course  of  these  debates.  The  Bank  proprietors 
have  made  great  and  unusual  gains  under  the  operation  of  the 
Bank  restriction.  I  say  this  without  the  smallest  intention  of 
laying  blame  upon  the  Bank,  or  of  exciting  any  invidious  feeling 
towards  them.  The  Directors  of  that  Institution,  I  again  repeat, 
have,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  acted  for  the  best  in  the  discharge  of 
a  new  and  most  difficult  duty.  But  the  fact  I  believe  will  not  be 
disputed.  Great  gains  have  been  made  in  consequence  of  the 
Bank  restriction.  The  issues  of  bank  paper,  whether  too  large 
or  not  in  another  view,  have  undeniably  been  much  larger  than 
they  could  have  been,  had  the  obligation  to  pay  in  cash  upon  de- 
mand continued,  or  been  renewed.  These  gains  certainly  formed 
no  part  of  the  inducement  to  lay  on  or  to  renew  the  Bank  restric- 
tion. They  form  no  ground  to  continue  it.  But  it  is  obvious — 
it  is  in  the  principles  of  human  nature — that  they  must  form  a 
temptation  to  tbe  Bank  proprietors  to  wish  for  its  continuance. 
It  is  obvious  also,  that  if  the  issues  are  inordinately  extended,  the 
difficulty  of  resuming  cash  payments  must  be  proportionably  aug- 
mented. And  it  is  still  more  obvious,  that  whether  those  motives 
and  those  causes  do  in  fact  so  operate  or  no,  from  the  natural  in- 
vidiousness  attendant  on  great  gains,  the  world  in  general  will  be 
apt  to  suspect  and  impute  their  operation. 


216  ON  THE  REPORT  OF 

Now  the  publ'c  has  no  right  to  complain  that  the  Bank  restric- 
tion, though  not  laid  or  continued  in  contemplation  of  advantage 
to  the  Bank  proprietors,  has  incidentally  been  productive  of  such 
advantage;  but  they  have  a  right  to  expect  that  no  impediment 
shall  on  that  ground  be  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  removal  of  the 
restriction.  A  continued  increase  of  profit,  and  a  continued  rais- 
ing of  the  dividends  to  the  Bank  proprietors,  if  it  had  not  that 
effect,  would  have  that  appearance.  The  dividend  is  now,  I  be- 
lieve, ten  per  cent.  There  surely  it  might  stop.  All  surplus 
profit  beyond  that  amount,  during  the  continuance  of  the  restric- 
tion, might  be  strictly  appropriated  as  a  fund  for  the  purchase  of 
bullion,  at  whatever  price. 

It  is  not  in  my  contemplation  that  the  public  (as  has  been  sug- 
gested in  several  quarters  since  this  question  has  been  in  discus- 
sion) should  enter  into  any  share  of  the  extraordinary  profits,  or 
meddle  in  any  degree  in  the  management,  of  the  Bank.  No  such 
thing.  Let  those  extraordinary  profits  remain,  in  full,  undisputed, 
and  unenvied  property,  to  the  Bank.  But  as  they  are  created  by 
the  suspension  of  cash  payments,  let  the  public  have  the  assur- 
ance that  they  are  so  employed  by  the  Bank,  as  to  ensure  their 
ability  to  resume  those  payments,  without  convulsion  or  distress, 
at  the  period  which  the  Legislature  has  fixed  for  the  resumption 
of  them. 

This,  I  think,  is  a  suggestion,  the  adoption  of  which  would 
be  no  less  creditable  to  the  Bank  than  satisfactory  to  the  public. 

For  this,  or  any  other  measure  calculated  to  remedy  the  evils 
acknowledged  to  exist,  we  can,  after  the  decision  to  which  this 
House  has  already  come,  rely  only  on  the  effect  which  may  be 
produced  by  our  discussions  upon  the  advised  discretion  of  the 
Bank,  and  upon  the  awakened  attention  of  the  public. 

But  at  least,  if  we  will  do  no  good,  let  us,  in  the  name  of 
common  sense,  not  do  any  harm.  If  we  will  not  set  right  the 
course  of  the  vessel,  let  us  at  least  not  destroy  the  chart  and  com- 
pass by  which  it  may  steer. 

Let  us  leave  the  evil,  if  it  must  be  so,  to  the  chance  of  a  grad- 
ual and  noiseless  correction.  But  let  us  not  resolve  as  law, 
what  is  an  incorrect  and  imperfect  exposition  of  the  law.  Lei 
us  not  resolve  as  fact,  what  is  contradictory  to  universal  experi- 
ence. Let  us  not  expose  ourselves  to  ridicule,  by  resolving,  as 
the  opinions  of  the  people,  opinions  which  the  people  do  not, 
and  which  it  is  impossible  they  should,  entertain.  This  is  not 
the  way  to  settle  the  public  feeling,  and  to  set  the  subject  at  rest. 
It  is  the  way  to  ensure  renewed  and  interminable  discussions. 
That  we  may  at  least  not  incur  this  unnecesary  mischief,  by 
adopting  the  Resolutions  now  before  us,  I  move,  Sir,  that  you  do 
now  leave  the  Chair. 


THE  BULLION   COMMITTEE.  21? 

The  House  divided  on  Mr.  Canning's  Amendment,  when  there  appeared — 

For  Mr.  Canning's  Amendment    42 
Against  it 82 

Majority  against  it      ....    40 

Mr.  Vansittart's  Resolutions  were  then  agreed  to  pro  forma,  with  an  un- 
derstanding that  they  should  be  discussed  upon  the  Report.  The  discussion 
on  Mr.  Vansittart's  Resolutions  was  resumed  on  the  following  day;  and  on 
the  15th,  after  some  verbal  amendments,  they  were  agreed  to. 


30 


218 


ADDRESS  RESPECTING  THE  WAR 
WITH  AMERICA. 

FEBRUARY  18th,  1813. 

Lord  Castlereagh  moved  the  following  Address: 

"  That  an  humble  Address  be  presented  to  His  Royal  Highness,  the  Prince 
Regent,  to  acquaint  His  Royal  Highness  that  we  have  taken  into  our  consider- 
ation the  papers  laid  before  us,  by  His  Royal  Highness's  commands,  relative  to 
the  late  discussions  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
That,  whilst  we  deeply  regret  the  failure  of  the  endeavours  of  His  Royal  High- 
ness to  preserve  the  relations  of  peace  and  amity  between  this  country  and  the 
United  States,  we  entirely  approve  of  the  resistance  which  has  been  opposed 
by  His  Royal  Highness  to  the  unjustifiable  pretensions  of  the  American  Gov- 
ernment; being  satisfied  that  those  pretensions  could  not  be  admitted  without 
surrendering  some  of  the  most  ancient,  undoubted,  and  important  rights  of  the 
British  empire.  That,  impressed  as  we  are  with  these  sentiments,  and  fully- 
convinced  of  the  justice  of  the  war  in  which  His  Majesty  has  been  compelled 
to  engage,  His  Royal  Highness  may  rely  on  our  most  zealous  and  cordial  sup- 
port in  every  measure  which  may  be  necessary  for  prosecuting  the  war  with 
vigour,  and  for  bringing  it  to  a  safe  and  honourable  termination." 

Mr.  Canning  and  Mr.  Stephen  rose  together;  a  general  wish  being  express- 
ed by  the  House,  that  the  former  should  proceed,  the  latter  gave  way,  and  Mr. 
Canning  addressed  the  House  nearly  as  follows : 

I  should  not  have  persisted,  Sir,  in  claiming  the  attention  of  the 
House  in  opposition  to  the  learned  gentleman  to  whom  personal 
allusions  have  just  been  made,  had  not  my  opinions  also  been 
called  in  question  in  more  than  one  sense,  at  an  earlier  period  of 
the  debate.  I  have  been  asked,  from  two  different,  indeed,  oppo- 
site quarters,  whether  I  still  persist  in  the  opinions  which  I  for- 
merly stated  on  the  subject  of  America.  Those  opinions  were  of 
two  descriptions;  the  one  relating  to  the  justice  of  the  war  into 
which  the  United  States  have  thought  proper  to  plunge  us,  the 
other  to  the  management  of  that  war  on  our  part.  I  retain  both. 
But  the  noble  lord  has  very  properly  said,  that  the  main  question, 
indeed  the  only  question  for  deliberation  and  decision  to-night,  is, 
whether  we  will  uphold,  by  our  votes,  the  justice  of  the  cause  of 
our  country,  laying  aside  all  dispute  upon  the  less  important  point 
of  the  practical  management  of  the  war.  And  agreeing  with  the 
noble  lord  in  this  view  of  our  present  and  most  pressing  duty; 
agreeing  that  our  first  object  must  be  to  inform  our  new  enemy 
that  we,  the  Parliament  of  the  British  Empire,  think  our  country 
in  the  right,  and  that  we  are  determined  to  stand  by  the  Execu- 
tive Government  in  maintaining  that  right  against  any  power  that 
may  venture  to  dispute  it,  and  thinking,  at  the  same  time,  that 


THE  WAR  WITH  AMERICA.  219 

any  very  anxious  or  angry  discussion,  as  to  the  vigour  and  effect 
With  which  the  cause  of  the  country  has  hitherto  been  maintained 
by  the  Executive  Government,  might,  if  it  impaired  the  una- 
nimity of  this  vote,  detract  from  its  weight  and  consideration  with 
the  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States  of  America,  I 
confess  that  I  am  glad  to  postpone  all  such  details,  however  im- 
portant they  may  be  in  other  views  of  the  subject,  or  however  fit 
for  separate  discussion  hereafter;  and  I  shall  be  much  less  solicit- 
ous to  examine  this  night  the  conduct  of  Administration,  since  the 
war  has  began,  than  to  vindicate  the  principles  on  which  this  and 
preceding  Administrations  have  acted,  in  the  transactions  from 
which  the  war  has  sprung,  and  to  establish  those  upon  which  it 
must  be  maintained,  and  upon  which  alone  it  can  be  concluded 
with  safety  and  with  honour. 

The  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Earing)  who  spoke  last,  ob- 
served at  the  outset  of  his  speech,  with  regret,  mingled  with  some 
consolation,  that  the  differences  with  the  United  States,  were  now 
reduced  to  a  single  point,  and  he  recommended  that  the  negotia- 
tions should  be  revived,  with  a  view  to  an  amicable  conclusion  on 
that  point.  I  agree  with  the  honourable  gentleman  that  the 
grounds  of  dispute  are  ostensibly  so  much  narrowed,  that  if  a  ne- 
gotiation could  be  set  on  foot,  which  should  have  regard  merely 
to  the  true  interests  of  the  republic  of  the  United  States,  and 
should  not  be  disturbed  and  diverted  from  its  course  by  the  in- 
fluence of  those  passions  by  which  its  Government  has  been  agi- 
tated, then,  indeed,  we  might  hope  for  conciliation  and  tranquil- 
lity; but  I  cannot  concur  with  him,  either  that  the  point  in  dispute 
is  of  such  easy  settlement,  complicated  as  it  has  been  in  the  course 
of  the  negotiations  with  national  feelings  and  animosities.  Still 
less  do  I  think  that  so  prompt  a  solution  of  the  difficulty,  as  he 
seems  to  reckon  upon,  is  afforded  by  his  construction  of  the  English 
Act  of  Parliament  to  which  he  has  referred.  If,  indeed,  the  true 
meaning  and  intent  of  the  statute  of  Anne,  were  to  give  to  for- 
eign sailors,  entering  and  serving  on  board  the  British  navy,  not 
only  all  those  privileges  here,  but  all  that  protection  against  their 
natural  sovereigns  and  native  governments,  which  the  United 
States  both  claim  the  right  of  conferring,  and  in  practice  attempt 
to  confer  upon  British  sailors,  seduced  or  deserting  into  their  ser- 
vice, then  I  admit  that  this  country  would  have  to  make  to  Ameri- 
ca an  equal  concession  for  an  equal  infringement  of  national  rights; 
and  that  as  there  would  have  been  a  parity  in  the  infringement, 
there  could  be  no  difficulty  in  a  parity  of  concession.  Neither  Gov- 
ernment could  in  that  case  have  had  any  thing  to  reproach  to  the 
other:  and  instead  of  a  question  of  violation  of  the  law  of  nations, 
on  the  one  side,  and  of  forcible  and  summary  self-redress  on  the 
other,  the  whole  matter  would  be  one  of  mutual  acknowledgment, 


220  ADDRESS  RESPECTING 

as  to  the  past,  and  of  conventional  arrangement  for  the  future. 
There  would  be  no  difference  of  principle,  and  the  point  in  dis- 
pute would  be  settled  only  on  grounds  of  reciprocal  convenience. 
But  1  acknowledge  that  my  construction  of  the  act  of  Anne,  was  al- 
together different.  I  understood  that  by  it  this  country  professed  to 
give  that  only  which  it  is  competent  to  bestow,  without  interfering 
in  any  degree  with  the  rights  or  claims  of  other  Powers — that  it 
imparted  to  foreigners,  on  certain  conditions,  certain  municipal 
privileges,  but  leaves  untouched  and  unimpaired  their  native  al- 
legiance. The  operation  of  this  act  as  I  understood  it,  before  the 
honourable  gentleman's  commentary,  was  not  to  hold  out  to  for- 
eign seamen,  that  at  the  same  time  that  they  may  become  entitled 
to  possess  or  inherit  property,  and  to  participate  in  all  the  bless- 
ings of  the  British  constitution,  all  the  ties  which  bind  them  to 
their  native  country,  are  loosened ;  not  to  assert  that  by  any  ser- 
vice to  a  foreign  state,  he  can  relieve  himself  from  that  indelible 
allegiance  which  he  owes  to  the  Government  under  which  he  was 
born.  The  enactments  of  this  statute  are  a  testimony  of  national 
gratitude  to  brave  men,  of  whatever  country,  who  may  lend  their 
aid  in  fighting  the  battles  of  Great  Britain;  but  not  an  invitation 
to  them  to  abandon  the  cause  of  their  own  country  when  it  may 
want  their  aid:  not  an  encouragement  to  them  to  deny  or  to  un- 
dervalue the  sacred  and  indestructible  duty  which  they  owe  to  their 
own  Sovereign,  and  to  their  native  soil.  Such  being  the  real  in- 
tention of  the  act,  what  similitude,  what  analogy  can  be  drawn 
between  it  and  the  pretensions  of  America?  In  the  papers  upon 
the  table  of  the  House,  it  is  asserted  by  our  enemies,  that  British 
seamen  once  enrolled  in  the  American  service,  become  the  sea- 
men of  the  United  States  of  America:  and  the  Government  of 
that  country  declares  that  it  must  protect  them  against  the  claims 
of  their  undoubted  Sovereign,  even  when  he  on  their  allegiance 
demands  their  service  in  war;  in  the  present  war,  for  instance, 
which  he  is  unwillingly  compelled  to  wage.  Taking  the  converse 
of  the  honourable  gentleman's  proposition,  then,  I  should  say, 
that  if  the  American  Government  would  adopt  such  a  provision  as 
that  quoted  by  the  honourable  gentleman,  from  the  Act  of  Queen 
Anne,  in  that  case,  if  all  differences  were  not  instantly  and  alto- 
gether removed,  at  least  the  question  in  dispute  would  be  greatly 
and  advantageously  narrowed. 

But,  coupled  with  the  inordinate  and  unheard-of  rights  of  citi- 
zenship which  the  United  States  pretend  to  confer,  to  the  anni- 
hilation of  the  claims  of  nativity  and  allegiance,  the  practical 
abuses  of  which  we  have  also  a  right  to  complain,  in  seducing 
or  harbouring  our  seamen,  even  independently  of  the  principles 
and  pretensions  by  which  they  are  defended,  would  be  of  them- 
selves matter  of  serious  grievance.     Were  these  principles  and 


THE  WAR  WITH  AMERICA.  221 

pretensions,  once  fairly  given  up,  indeed,  the  road  would  be  open- 
ed to  the  discussion  of  the  practice.  It  would  be  open  to  con- 
sider whether  any  adequate  security  could  be  provided  by  diplo- 
matic arrangement,  and  municipal  regulation,  against  a  grievance 
wdiich  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  tolerate;  such  as  should 
supersede  the  necessity  of  that  summary  and  effectual  method  of 
doing  ourselves  justice,  which  we  cannot  relinquish  till  some  sat- 
isfactory substitute  is  found  for  it:  but  the  exercise  of  which,  it 
must  be  admitted,  may  be  liable  to  some  abuse  or  irregularity. 
Now,  on  a  fair  perusal  of  the  documents,  I  find  nothing  which 
proves  any  disposition,  in  the  English  Ministry,  to  shut  the  door 
against  a  consideration  of  that  important  question.  The  fact  is, 
that  different  modes  of  entering  upon  the  subject  have  been  sug- 
gested, but  there  is  one  preliminary  demand  on  the  part  of  Amer- 
ica, which  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  we  could  comply  with. 
We  are,  by  ancient  and  unquestioned  usage,  and  by  the  law  of 
nations,  as  they  are  now  understood,  in  the  possession  of  the  right 
of  search.  It  has  been,  and  is,  of  ancient  and  uninterrupted  usage. 
It  is  proposed  by  both  parties,  that  a  discussion  should  be  com- 
menced, as  to  the  more  unexceptionable  mode  of  exercising  this 
right;  but  what  does  the  American  Executive  insist  upon?  That 
we  should  first  abandon  it,  and  trust  for  its  restoration  to  the  re- 
sult of  the  negotiation.  We  are  required  to  trust  to  an  act  to  be 
hereafter  passed  by  the  American  Legislature,  for  the  restoration 
of  this  right,  or  for  the  provision  of  an  equivalent.  Can  any 
thing  be  more  manifestly  absurd  and  unjust  ?  Is  not  the  natural 
course,  not  by  the  law  of  nations  only,  but  by  the  rules  of  com- 
mon sense,  that  we  should  retain  that  which  we  rightfully  possess, 
until  the  equivalent  for  which  it  is  to  be  exchanged  shall  be  fully 
discussed,  and  satisfactorily  ascertained  ?  The  honourable  gentle- 
man says,  that  it  will  cost  us  a  war  to  maintain  the  possession  of 
it.  I  wish  to  ask  him  what  wars  would  it  not  cost  us  to  regain 
possession,  if  it  were  once  resigned?  At  least,  maintaining  our 
right,  we  are  safe  until  force  compel  us  to  resign  it. 

I  am  sure  that  gentlemen,  upon  reflection,  must  see  the  pro- 
posed compromise  is  at  least  attended  with  difficulties  which,  if 
not  absolutely  insuperable,  are  extremely  hard  to  be  surmounted. 
The  appointment  of  a  tribunal  similar  to  a  prize  court,  as  suggest- 
ed by  an  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Baring)  in  this  debate,  ap- 
proaches nearest  to  my  ideas  of  possibility;  but  is  this  likely  to 
be  found  practicable  or  palatable  to  America,  if  the  proposal  of  it 
shAuld  come  from  this  country?  Were  it  suggested  by  America, 
it  might  perhaps  produce  some  beneficial  result;  but  if  proposed 
by  Great  Britain,  would  it  not  be  repelled  with  indignation  ? 
Would  America  bear  to  see  her  citizens  made  subjects  of  judica- 
ture, like  bales  of  contraband  goods?   Would  she  endure  that  a 


222  ADDRESS  RESPECTING 

judge  of  our  appointment  should  settle  the  fate  of  her  natives,  as 
we  assign  chattels  to  the  right  owner?  Or  would  not  such  a  pro- 
posal, instead  of  tending  to  the  settlement  of  differences,  and  the 
extinction  of  animosities,  be  employed  by  the  demagogues  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic  to  inflame  the  public  mind,  to  exaspe- 
rate the  jealousies  and  hatreds  of  the  enemies  of  Great  Britain, 
and  to  make  all  amicable  arrangement  utterly  hopeless? 

I  have,  however,  as  I  have  said,  no  objection,  and  the  British 
Government  has  not  shown  any,  throughout  the  correspondence 
now  under  our  consideration,  to  any  attempt  to  make  the  exercise 
of  this  right  the  subject  of  diplomatic  arrangement,  provided  the 
principle  of  the  right  itself  be  unequivocally  acknowledged;  pro- 
vided the  suspension,  or  tacit  abandonment  of  it  be  not  expected 
to  precede  the  substitution  of  some  other  effectual  mode  of  securing 
the  objects  to  which  it  applies;  and  provided  it  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood that,  failing  the  attempt  to  effect  that  substitution,  our 
right,  and  the  practice  of  it,  are  to  continue  not  only  unimpaired, 
but  thenceforth  unquestioned.  The  dispute  relating  to  the  im- 
pressment (as  it  is  termed)  or  rather  the  recal  of  our  own  seamen, 
is  not,  however,  as  the  honourable  gentleman  admits,  the  only 
point  to  be  adjusted,  before  we  can  return  to  a  good  understand- 
ing with  the  United  States.  The  American  Government  also  re- 
quires the  renunciation  of  the  system  and  principle  of  what  they 
call  paper  blockades;  that  is  to  say,  of  the  right  which  we  claim 
and  have  exercised  under  the  orders  in  council  of  1807,  and 
should,  I  trust,  exercise  again,  if  again  occasion  arose  for  it,  of  re- 
torting upon  the  enemy  any  attempt  which  he  may  make  to 
wound  us  through  the  sides,  or  by  the  instrumentality  of  neutrals. 
With  respect  to  blockades,  the  honourable  gentleman  has  appeal- 
ed to  my  recollection,  whether  the  blockade  of  1806  did  not 
stand  on  different  principles  from  those  of  1S07?  The  honoura- 
ble gentleman  is  perfectly  correct.  The  order  of  1806  establish- 
ed, or  professed  to  establish  a  blockade  upon  the  old  principles, 
by  the  application  of  a  specific  and  competent  force  to  particular 
ports.  In  January  1807,  an  order  was  issued  professedly  of  a  re- 
taliatory character.  The  order  of  1806  merged  in  it.  What  had 
intervened  between  the  order  of  May  1806,  and  that  of  January 
1807?  The  French  Berlin  Decree.  In  retaliation,  and  avowedly 
in  retaliation  for  that  decree,  the  order  of  January  1807  was  is- 
sued; doing  away  the  strict  legal  blockade,  and  instituting  what 
has  been  and  may  justly  be  described  as  a  constructive  blockade, 
not  supported  by  an  adequate  specific  force,  but  excluding  neu- 
trals from  the  coasting  trade  of  the  enemy  by  a  prohibition  re- 
taliatory of  that  sweeping  prohibition  of  the  Berlin  Decree  by 
which  they  wrere  precluded  from  all  trade  with  Great  Britain. 
The   orders  of  November,  1807,  extended  the  operation  of  the 


THE  WAR  WITH  AMERICA.  223 

order  of  January:  but  did  not  vary  its  principle.  I  have  no  wish 
to  revive  the  differences  which  the  honourable  gentleman  and  I 
have  so  often  discussed  upon  that  subject,  but  I  am  equally  pre- 
pared to  contend  now,  as  four  years  ago,  that  though  there  was 
some  difference  in  degree  between  the  orders  of  November,  and 
that  of  January  1S07,  there  was  no  difference  in  the  principle; 
and  certainly  the  honourable  gentleman  must  own  that  the  Amer- 
icans have  made  no  such  distinction  in  their  remonstrances. 

The  orders  in  council,  however,  both  of  January  and  Novem- 
ber were  abandoned:  wisely  or  not,  there  is  now  no  advantage  in 
inquiring;  with  little  chance  of  satisfying  America,  as  I  thought  at 
the  time,  and  as  must  now  be  manifest  to  all  mankind:  and  for  this 
plain  reason,  that  the  American  Government  was  not  to  be  satisfied. 
They  had  an  itch  for  war  with  this  country,  and  they  were  deter- 
mined to  have  it.  Although,  therefore,  these  are  the  only  two 
points  on  which  any  practical  discussion  is  pending,  I  cannot 
agree  that  they  only  entered  the  minds  of  the  American  Execu- 
tive when  they  declared  war  (for  be  it  always  remembered,  that 
the  war  originated  in  their  declaration.)  The  spirit  of  animosity 
to  this  country,  indeed,  was  not  confined  to  the  persons  forming 
the  cabinet  of  the  United  States;  the  gall  of  bitterness  not  only 
overflowed  in  Washington,  but  at  the  very  court  of  London.  The 
notes  of  the  republican  Charge  d'affairs,  Mr.  Russell,  contain 
abundant  evidence  not  only  of  the  predetermination  to  war,  but 
of  the  real  motives  of  that  policy.  In  the  month  of  August,  he, 
with  warning  voice,  pointed  out  to  Ministers  the  consequences  of 
hostility;  he  told  them,  "  if  concessions  are  not  speedily  made, 
the  passions  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  will  be  roused, 
and  conquests  may  be  gained  on  terms  that  forbid  restoration." 
When  this  sentence  was  penned,  has  not  Mr.  Russell  Canada  be- 
fore his  eyes?  Was  he  not  in  the  transport  of  his  visions  of  suc- 
cess betraying  incautiously  the  secrets  of  his  employers,  which 
were  not  to  be  divulged  till  the  promulgation  of  the  declaration? 
Low  as  he  was  in  the  rank  of  diplomacy,  he  was  intrusted  with 
this  grand  and  favourite  design;  and  it  is  impossible  for  any  man 
not  to  see  from  the  commencement  to  the  termination  of  all  the 
proceedings  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  an  eager 
desire  to  gain  possession  of  our  North  American  territories:  a 
plan  long  cherished,  and  not  wholly,  I  fear,  repugnant  to  the  sen- 
timents even  of  that  party  in  the  United  States  whom  it  is  usual 
to  designate  as  our  friends.  Even  when  their  whole  military  es- 
tablishment was  1,000  men,  the  American  Government  and  its 
partisans  loudly  proclaimed  their  sanguine  hopes  of  victory  in  an 
expedition  against  British  America,  and  delighted  their  fancies  by 
imaginary  conquests.  I  say,  that  even  those  who  are  called  our 
friends  in  the  United  States,  are  not  averse  from  this  enterprise, 


224  ADDRESS  RESPECTING 

and  would  be  won  by  the  acquisition  of  Canada  to  the  support 
and  approbation  of  the  war.  But  I  use  the  expression  "  friends 
of  this  country," — as  I  do  that  of  friends  of  France, — not  as  im- 
plying on  the  one  hand  a  British  influence,  nor  on  the  other  hand, 
imputing  an  actual  conscious  subserviency  to  Buonaparte:  (though 
it  must  be  owned  that  for  the  latter  imputation  there  are  appear- 
ances of  but  too  probable  grounds:)  but  simply  as  designating  the 
two  parties  in  the  United  States  who  respectively  think  the  inter- 
ests of  their  country  best  consulted,  the  one  by  a  British,  the 
other  by  a  French  connexion. 

And  here  I  must  confess  that  the  censure  of  the  honourable 
gentleman  (Mr.  Whitbread)  upon  that  part  of  the  noble  lord's 
(Lord  Castlereagh's)  speech  which  referred  to  the  period  chosen 
by  the  American  Government  for  declaring  war,  appears  to  me 
exceedingly  ill-founded.  The  noble  lord's  remarks  upon  that 
subject  did  not  appear  to  me  unjust  or  unnecessary.  Looking  at 
the  present  state  of  the  world  who  shall  say  what  America  might 
not  have  achieved  ?  Not  by  mixing  in  the  contest,  and  involving 
herself  in  the  complicated  relations  of  European  politics;  (for  I 
have  never  wished  to  see  America  involved  in  the  war,)  but 
merely  by  abstaining  from  the  course  which  she  has  unfortunately 
taken,  by  refusing  to  administer  to  the  passions,  to  flatter  the  ha- 
tred of  the  tyrant,  to  afford  him  that  new  hope  of  victory,  and 
that  consolation  in  defeat,  which  he  boasts  of  deriving,  from  the 
diversion  of  our  means,  and  the  distraction  of  our  efforts  by  the 
American  war?  What  assistance  might  she  not  have  rendered  to 
the  late  glorious  struggle  in  the  north,  not  by  active  concert,  but 
merely  in  forbearing  to  aid  Buonaparte's  arms  by  partly  occupying 
ours  ?  Who  would  have  expected  to  have  seen  this  favourite  child 
of  freedom  leagued  with  the  oppressor  of  the  world  ?  She  who, 
twenty  years  ago,  shed  her  blood  for  independence — She  that, 
ever  since  that  time,  has  boasted  of  the  superiority  of  her  citizens 
above  all  the  nations  of  the  globe — She  that,  watched  over  in  her 
infancy  by  Great  Britain,  with  parental  tenderness  and  anxiety,* 
nursed  in  the  very  lap  of  liberty,  and  educated  in  the  school  of 
republicanism,  is  now  seen  truckling  to  France,  and  condescend- 
ing to  become  the  tool  of  an  ambition  which  threatens  to  lay  pros- 
trate at  its  feet  the  independence  of  every  government,  and  of 
every  people!  Is  this  the  same  nation  that  we  once  remember  to 
have  heard  shouting  for  emancipation  ?  Is  this  the  people  that 
was  to  set  an  example  of  magnanimity  to  the  world?  I  can 
scarcely  believe  it:  I  would  willingly  persuade  myself  that  I  am 
deceived;  but  facts  cannot  be  discredited,  and  I  behold  the  free 
republic  of  America  lending  her  aid  to  crush  those  principles  to 

*Vide  Ld.  Chatham. 


THE  WAR  WITH  AMERICA.  225 

which  she  owes  her  own  existence,  and  to  support  the  most  deso- 
lating tyranny  that  ever  afflicted  the  race  of  man.  It  is  impossi- 
ble not  to  lament  the  loss  to  such  a  nation,  of  such  an  opportunity, 
which  no  combination  of  circumstances  can  ever  restore.  I  do 
not  say,  that  America  should  have  been  induced  to  assist  us  against 
France.  I  would  not  have  asked  her  to  risk  her  tender  and  un- 
confirmed existence  in  a  war,  and  to  endure  all  the  dangers,  or  to 
incur  all  the  expenses  that  must  have  ensued  from  her  taking 
part  in  such  an  enterprize.  She  might  have  maintained  a  just 
and  noble  neutrality.  But  were  it  put  to  me  indeed  as  matter  of 
opinion,  supposing  (what  I  do  not  suppose)  that  she  could  not 
avoid  deciding  one  way  or  other,  and  that  the  risk  of  war  on  one 
side  must  be  run,  which  would  best  become  her  history,  her 
character,  and  her  constitution,  to  unite  with  England  or  to 
league  with  France; — I  should  not  have  hesitated  in  my  deter- 
mination. There  was  a  time  when  I  hoped  that  her  choice,  under 
such  an  alternative,  would  have  required  little  deliberation;  but 
though  I  should  have  applauded  her  option  in  such  a  case,  I 
would  not  have  forced  nor  even  have  solicited  it.  She  was  wel- 
come to  be  neuter,  could  she  but  have  persuaded  herself  to  be  impar- 
tial.— There  is  still  something  imposing  in  the  name  of  a  republic. 
The  veneration  for  that  form  of  government  is,  even  in  this  mon- 
archical country,  interwoven  with  our  earliest  impressions  of 
honour,  of  liberty,  and  of  virtue.  But,  I  fear,  that  in  the  republic 
of  America  we  look  for  the  realization  of  our  visions  of  repub- 
lican virtue  in  vain.  The  sacred  love  of  freedom,  displayed  in 
the  annals  of  Greece  and  Rome,  "  made  ambition  virtue,"  and 
consecrated  even  the  weapons  of  the  conqueror.  The  modern 
republics  of  Europe  polished  mankind  by  their  industry,  and 
their  arts.  .But  I  am  afraid  that  neither  the  hardy  valour,  the 
ardent  patriotism  and  the  lofty  magnanimity  of  ancient  Greece 
and  Rome,  nor  the  gentle  manners  and  artificial  refinements  of 
Genoa  or  Florence,  are  to  be  traced  in  the  hard  features  of  trans- 
atlantic democracy.  Would  it  were  otherwise!  The  heartless 
and  selfish  policy  pursued  by  America  will  lead  her  far  astray 
from  her  real  interest.  The  first  consequence  of  it  will  be,  the 
loss  of  much  internal  prosperity,  and  I  am  much  deceived  if  she 
will  compensate  this  loss  by  the  acquisition  of  much  military 
glory.  The  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Foster,)  describes  a 
thousand  soldiers,  four  or  five  frigates,  to  guard  an  extent  of  coast 
of  fifteen  hundred  miles,  and  a  revenue  of  only  two  millions  and 
a  half  of  dollars,  I  think,  or  thereabouts,  as  the  means,  physical 
and  pecuniary,  of  which  the  United  States  were  in  possession, 
when  they  declared  war  against  this  country.  Undoubtedly  no 
man  could  hear  the  statement  without  exclaiming — "and  could  a 
nation  so  circumstanced  venture  upon  a  war  with  the  mighty  em- 
31 


226  ADDRESS  RESPECTING 

pire  of  Great  Britain,  with  the  most  distant  prospect  of  success  V9 
Unluckily  it  did.  The  unwelcome  truth  cannot  be  concealed.  Two 
out  of  these  four  or  five  frigates  have  captured  two  frigates  from 
the  British  navy.  I  advert  with  unwillingness  to  this  part  of  the 
subject,  because  in  my  opinion,  (an  opinion  before  expressed  and 
still  retained)  vigorous  measures  becoming  this  great  nation  might 
have  averted  disasters  which  may  have  the  effect  of  prolonging 
hostilities.  It  is  no  answer  to  say,  that  our  navy  is  immense,  but 
that  it  is  proportionably  extended  on  the  different  stations.  I  com- 
plain notof  the  naval  department,  but  of  the  policy  which  controlled 
its  operations.  I  complain  that  the  arm  which  should  have  launch- 
ed the  thunderbolt,  was  occupied  in  guiding  the  pen:  that  Ad- 
miral Warren  was  busied  in  negotiating,  when  he  ought  to  have 
been  sinking,  burning,  and  destroying.  Admiral  Warren  sails 
from  this  country  in  the  middle  of  August,  and  on  the  27th  of 
September  he  reaches  Halifax  with  his  squadron,  where  he  em- 
ploys himself  in  writing  despatches  to  the  American  Government; 
while  Commodore  Rogers  on  the  10th  of  October,  sails  unmolest- 
ed from  Boston.  But  we  waited,  it  seems,  to  be  quite  sure  that 
we  were  actually  at  war  ?  Granted  for  argument's  sake  (for  no 
other  purpose  could  I  consent  to  grant  it)  that  in  the  first  instance 
there  might  be  not  full  conviction  of  the  certainty  of  war;  but 
even  after  the  American  declaration  was  received  in  the  end  of 
July,  no  hostile  measure  was  resorted  to  by  this  country  till  the 
14th  of  October,  when  letters  of  marque  were  issued,  upon  the 
receipt  here  of  the  intelligence  (and  as  might  be  not  unfairly  sus- 
pected, in  consequence  of  that  intelligence)  that  the  Guerriere  frigate 
had  been  captured  by  the  Americans. — What  is  the  next  advance 
towards  actual  war?  The  blockade  of  the  Chesapeake;  and  the  or- 
der in  council  announcing  that  blockade,  was  issued,  when? — the 
day  after  the  arrival  of  the  intelligence  that  the  Macedonian,  an- 
other of  our  frigates,  had  fallen  into  the  power  of  the  Republic. 
The  loss  of  these  two  fine  ships  of  war,  produced  a  sensation  in 
the  country  scarcely  to  be  equalled  by  the  most  violent  convulsion 
of  nature.  I  do  not  attribute  the  slightest  blame  to  our  gallant 
sailors,  they  always  do  their  duty;  but  neither  can  I  agree  with 
those  who  complain  of  the  shock  of  consternation  throughout 
Great  Britain,  as  having  been  greater  than  the  occasion  justified. 
Who  would  represent  the  loss  as  insignificant,  and  the  feelings  of 
shame  and  indignation  occasioned  by  it  as  exaggerated  and  ex- 
travagant? That  indignation  was  a  wholesome  feeling,  which 
ought  to  be  cherished  and  maintained.  It  cannot  be  too  deeply  felt 
that  the  sacred  spell  of  the  invincibility  of  the  British  navy  was 
broken  by  those  unfortunate  captures;  and  however  speedily  we 
must  all  wish  the  war  to  terminate,  I  hope  I  shall  not  be  consid- 
ered as  sanguinary  and  unfeeling,  when  I  express  my  devout  wish 


THE  AVAR  WITH  AMERICA.  227 

that  it  may  not  be  concluded  before  we  have  re-established  the 
character  of  our  naval  superiority,  and  smothered  in  victories  the 
disasters  which  we  have  now  to  lament,  and  to  which  we  are  so 
little  habituated. — Sir,  I  entered  on  these  points  reluctantly  on  the 
present  occasion.     Other  occasions  will  arise  for  their  discussion. 
I  hasten  to  quit  them.     But  having  been  expressly  called  upon  to 
declare  if  I  retained  the  sentiments  which  I  before  expressed  upon 
the  conduct  of  the  war,  I  felt  bound  in  fairness  not  to  decline  the 
avowal  that  my  opinion  not  only  remains  unaltered,  but  has  re- 
ceived additional  confirmation  from  subsequent  events.     If  it  be 
true  (as  I  believe  it  to  be)  in  general,  that  indecision  and  delay 
are  the  parents  of  failure;  that  they  take  every  possible  chance 
of  detriment  to  the  cause  in  which  they  are  employed,  and  afford 
every  advantage  and  encouragement  to  the  adversary;  it  was  pe- 
culiarly true  in  the  present  instance,  that  promptitude  and  vigour 
afforded  at  once  the  surest  pledge  of  success  in  the  war,  and  the 
only  hope  of  averting  it  altogether,  if  while  the  elections  were 
pending,  the  result  of  which  was  to  place  Mr.  Madison,  the  arch 
enemy  of  this  country,  in  the  President's  chair,  a  decisive  blow 
had  been  struck  by  this  country,  the  tide  of  popular  opinion  in 
America  might  have  been  turned,  and  the  consequences  of  a  long 
and  ruinous  war  might  have  been  avoided.  I  lament,  for  the  gene- 
ral happiness  of  mankind,  that  no  such  vigourous  exertion  was 
attempted;  and  though  I  am  not  disposed  to  unnecessary  cruelties, 
nor  would  countenance  the  wanton  effusion  of  human  bood,  yet  I 
cannot  help  thinking  that  if  some  signal  act  of  vengeance  had 
been  inflicted  on  any  part  of  the  United  States  exposed  to  mari- 
time  attack,   but  particularly  on   any  portion  of  their   territory 
where  there  prevailed  the  greatest  attachment  to  the  interests  of 
France,  it  would  have  at  least  been  a  useful  warning,  and  might 
have  prevented  the  continuance  of  the  contest,  if  they  had  not 
prevented  its  commencement.      I  protest  against  the  doctrine  of 
half  measures,  and  forbearance  in  war;  for  where  vigour  has  a 
tendency  to  decide  the  contest,  hesitation  is  cruelty.     But  with 
these  topics   I   have  done.     Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  the 
contest,  after  the  declaration   issued   by  the  United  States,  this 
country  will  stand  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  and  of  posterity. 
Nay,  it  is  not  paradoxical  to  say  that  we  shall  stand  right,  at  no 
distant  time,   in   the   eyes   even   of    our  enemies  in  the  United 
States;   for  by  a  singular  anomaly,  upon  the  issue  of  this  struggle 
in  which  America  is  attempting  to  cripple  our  resources,  depends 
not  only  the   independence  of  Europe,  but  perhaps  ultimately, 
the  freedom  of  America  herself. 

The  question  was  pu1  and  carried  ne.m.  con. 


228 


MR.  CANNING'S  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

May  6th,  1817. 

Mr.  Lambton  this  day  brought  forward  the  motion  of  which  he  had  given 
notice,  respecting  Mr.  Canning's  Embassy  to  Lisbon.  In  bringing  forward  this 
motion,  he  disclaimed  any  intention  of  attack  upon  the  right  honourable  gen- 
tleman (Mr.  Canning,)  whose  name  was  prominently  connected  with  the  trans- 
actions to  which  it  referred.  It  was  not  the  conduct  of  an  individual  that  he 
arraigned ;  but  the  charge  which  he  had  to  prefer  was  against  His  Majesty's 
Ministers  of  delinquency,  by  which,  in  his  opinion,  they  had  subjected  them- 
selves to  an  impeachment  (if  that  was  not  an  obsolete  proceeding,)  on  a  charge 
of  a  criminal  misapplication  of  the  public  money  for  the  most  corrupt  private 
purposes.  This  was  not  the  first  time  when  this  transaction  had  been  made 
the  subject  of  discussion.  Both  within  and  without  those  walls  it  had  been  re- 
garded as  a  measure  resorted  to,  purely  tor  the  purpose  of  supplying  the  weak- 
ness of  the  members  of  Government,  by  calling  to  their  assistance  the  talents 
of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  (Mr.  C.)  talents  too  useful  indeed  to  lan- 
guish in  obscurity.  It  had  every  where  been  asserted,  that  there  were  no  pub- 
lic grounds  for  sending  an  Ambassador  to  Lisbon  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
Peninsular  War;  that  it  was  a  disgraceful  waste  of  public  money,  and  solely 
to  be  attributed  to  the  lowest  species  of  political  barter  and  intrigue.  The  pa- 
pers which  had  been  laid  upon  the  table  of  the  House  fully  proved  that  the 
mission  to  Lisbon  was  undertaken  with  no  prospect  of  advantage  to  the  inter- 
ests of  this  country  in  its  political  or  commercial  relations,  but  with  a  view 
solely  to  the  political,  and  he  might  almost  say,  commercial,  advantages  of  the 
Ministers  themselves;  and  that  for  these  sinister  objects  they  consented  to  add 
to  the  burthens  of  the  people,  already  groaning  under  the  weight  of  an  insup- 
portable taxation. 

The  statement  of  the  case  was  this: — In  July,  1814,  a  negotiation  was  en- 
tered into  by  the  Ministers  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  co-operation  of  the 
Tight  honourable  gentleman  opposite  (Mr.  Canning)  and  his  friends  in  both 
Houses.  On  the  29th  of  June  that  negotiation  was  brought  to  a  successful  is- 
sue, Mr.  Canning  being  appointed  Ambassador  to  Lisbon,  Mr.  Huskisson  Sur- 
veyor-General of  Woods  and  Forests,  and  Mr.  Wellesley  Pole  Master  of  the 
Mint.  On  the  30th  of  July,  the  member  for  Liverpool  moved  for  a  new  writ 
in  the  room  of  his  friend,  Mr.  Huskisson,  on  the  appointment  of  that  gentle- 
man. The  motives  assigned  for  the  appointment  of  an  Ambassador  to  Lisbon 
had  been  two  despatches  from  Lord  Strangford,  the  Minister  at  the  court  of 
Brazil,  to  Viscount  Castlereagh,  respecting  the  intention  of  the  Prince  Regent 
of  Portugal  to  return  to  Europe.  The  first  of  these  despatches  had  been  received 
on  the  24th  of  April,  1814,  the  second  on  the  26th  of  August.  As  these  were  the 
only  authorities  on  which  the  measure  rested,  he  should  read  them.  The  first 
was  in  these  words: — 

"I  should  fail  in  my  duty,  did  I  not  earnestly  recommend  to  the  considera- 
tion of  his  Royal  Highness' s  Government,  the  speedy  return  to  Europe  of  the 
Portuguese  Royal  Family.  The  Prince's  own  feelings,  and  those  of  every 
member  of  his  family,  are  earnestly  in  favour  of  this  measure.  Some  degree 
of  apprehension  may,  perhaps,  operate  upon  the  mind  of  the  Prince  himself,  to 
prevent  him  from  coming  forward  as  eagerly  as  the  other  individuals  of  the  royal 
family  would  wish;  but  this  sentiment  would  be  easily  removed,  and  His  Royal 
Highness  has  explicitly  stated  to  me,  that  as  soon  as  ever  Great  Britain  de- 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  229 

clares  that  his  return  to  Portugal  is  necessary,  he  will  accede  to  any  intima- 
tion to  that  effect." 

This,  it  would  be  observed,  contained  merely  a  declaration  of  the  line  of 
policy  which  Lord  Strangford  had  thought  fit  to  adopt.  The  next  despatch 
was  received  on  the  26th  of  August,  and  was  in  these  words : — 

"The  glorious  events  which  have  given  peace  and  independence  to  Europe, 
have  revived  in  the  mind  of  the  Prince  of  Brazil  those  eager  desires  to  revisit 
his  native  country,  which  had  been  for  a  time  suppressed.  His  Royal  High- 
ness has  lately  done  me  the  honour  to  state  his  anxious  hope  that  Great  Britain 
will  facilitate  the  completion  of  his  wishes  upon  this  subject,  and  that  he  may 
return  to  Portugal  under  the  same  protection  as  that  under  which  he  had  left 
it.  And  His  Royal  Highness  has,  during  the  last  week,  intimated  to  me  four 
or  five  times,  as  well  publicly  as  privately,  that  in  case  Great  Britain  should 
send  a  squadron  of  ships  of  war  to  this  place,  for  the  purpose  of  escorting  His 
Royal  Highness  to  Europe,  it  would  be  particularly  and  personally  gratifying 

to  His  Royal  Highness  that should  be  selected  for  this  service." 

The  blank,  he  believed,  had  been  filled  up  by  the  name  of  Sir  Sidney  Smith. 
Now,  on  one  or  other  of  the  despatches  which  he  had  read,  the  appointment  of 
the  Lisbon  Ambassador  must  have  been  founded,  if  it  had  any  foundation  but 
the  desire  to  find  an  appointment  for  the  right  honourable  gentleman.     It  was 
ascertained  that,  in  the  interval  between  the  24th  of  April  and  the  26th  of 
August,  no  communication  had  been  made  from  the  Portuguese  Ambassador  to 
our  Government.     An  address  had  been  voted  for  all  the  communications  from 
the  Portuguese  Ambassador  respecting  the  return  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Por- 
tugal, and  the  answer  was,  that  no  written  communication  had   been  made. 
Indeed,  he  could  prove  at  the  bar  that  not  only  had  the  Portuguese  Minister 
made  no  communication  of  the  probability  of  the  return  of  the  Prince  of  Bra- 
zil, but  he  had  asserted  that  the  Government  had  quite  misunderstood  the  in- 
tention of  his  master.     The  appointment  could  not  have  been  in  consequence 
of  the  despatch  received  in  April,  for  it  was  on  the  6th  of  June  that  Mr.  Syden- 
ham was  appointed ;  and  on  the  18th  of  July,  when  the  noble  lord  opposite  had 
written  to  Mr.  Sydenham,  telling  him  that  he  could  not  anticipate  any  public 
grounds  why  he  (Mr.  S.)  should  not  confine  himself  within  his  ordinary  allow- 
ances, he  of  course  could  have  had  no  contemplation  of  any  such  appointment. 
It  was  still  more  impossible  that  the  appointment  could  have  been  occasioned 
by  the  despatch  received  on  the  26th  of  August,  for  that  was  a  month  after  the 
appointment  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  been  announced  to  the  pub- 
lic in  the  newspapers.     He  supposed  it  would  not  be  contended  that  the  ap- 
pointment did  not  take  place  until  it  was  formally  announced  in  the  Gazette — 
the  evidentia  rei,  the  previous  notoriety  of  the  transaction,  was  a  sufficient  con- 
tradiction of  any  such  idea,  and  he  did  not  think  any  of  the  Ministers  would 
stand  forward  in  their  places  and  assert,  that  the  appointment  did  not  take  place 
in  July.     But  if  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  really  been  appointed  for 
the  purpose  of  welcoming  the  Prince  Regent  on  his  return,  by  what  pretence 
could  the  appointment  be  justified  in  August,  when  the  fleet  intended  to  con- 
vey the  Prince  of  Brazil  to  Europe  did  not  sail  till  the  29th  of  October?     It  was 
morally  impossible,  therefore,  that  His  Royal  Highness  could  have  reached 
Europe  till  the  month  of  May  following. 

He  should  now  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  expenses  of  the  mis- 
sions:—On  the  18th  July,  1814,  Lord  Castlereagh  had  written  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Sydenham,  then  the  Minister  at  Lisbon,  in  which  he  slated  that  it  was  the 
Prince  Regent's  pleasure  that  the  expenses  of  the  mission  should  be  reduced  to 
the  lowest  scale,  and  stating,  that  he  could  not  contemplate  any  reasons  for  con- 
tinuing the  scale  of  expenditure  which  had  been  adopted  during  the  Peninsular 
War.  He  had  been  rather  surprised  to  find  this  economical  disposition  in  any 
production  of  the  noble  lord's;  but  his  surprise  was  of  short  duration,  for  only 


230  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

ton  days  after  Mr.  Sydenham  had  been  reduced  to  a  salary  of  £5,200  a  year, 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  was  appointed  Ambassador  Extraordinary,  with 
a  salary  of  nearly  treble  that  amount.  On  the  31st  of  October,  in  the  absence 
of  the  noble  lord  (Castlereagh)  at  the  Congress,  Lord  Bathurst  wrote  to  Mr. 
Canning,  then  in  England,  to  inform  him  that  he  was  to  be  allowed  £14,200  a 
year,  on  the  same  grounds  on  which  Mr.  Sydenham  had  been  limited  to  £  5,200. 
Why  such  a  change  had  taken  place  in  the  allowance  to  the  Minister,  while 
no  change  had  taken  place  in  the  circumstances  of  the  embassy,  and  when  no 
chance  existed  of  the  immediate  return  of  the  Prince  of  Brazil  to  Europe,  yet 
remained  to  be  explained.  The  expense  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart  had  been  re- 
ferred to,  but  that  could  form  no  precedent  for  the  expenditure  of  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman.  The  whole  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  expenses  were  occa- 
sioned by  the  Peninsular  War.  He  actually  held  the  reins  of  the  Portuguese 
Government.  He  was  a  member,  he  believed  the  sole  efficient  member,  of  the 
Regency,  and  was  forced  to  incur  the  whole  of  his  large  expenditure,  to  dis- 
charge the  high  official  duties  of  his  situation.  But  the  case  was  very  differ- 
ent when  the  war  had  ceased,  arid  when  the  Ambassador  was  no  longer  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Portuguese  Government.  On  the  30th  of  May,  1815,  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman  had  found  out  a  reason  for  this  increased  scale  of  allowance. 
In  a  letter  to  the  noble  lord  (Castlereagh)  of  that  date,  he  stated,  that  "  the  rank  of 
ambassador,  which  could  make  no  practical  difference  in  expenses,  of  which 
the  salary  (whether  as  ambassador  or  as  envoy)  supplied  only  a  part,  was  po- 
litically important,  as  counterbalancing  the  positive  loss  of  rank  and  influence, 
which  would  otherwise  have  been  occasioned  by  the  British  Minister's  being 
no  longer  a  member  of  the  Regency."  The  right  honourable  gentleman  had 
by  that  time  forgotten  the  letter  of  Lord  Castlereagh,  in  which  Mr.  Sydenham 
was  directed  to  reduce  his  expenses  to  the  lowest  scale.  He  seemed  to  have 
taken  a  former  suggestion  of  his  noble  friend — to  have  "two  strings  to  his 
bow" — for  when  he  was  forced  to  acknowledge  that  the  object  of  his  mission 
had  ceased,  as  there  was  no  probability  of  the  Prince  of  Brazil's  return  to  Eu- 
rope, he  contrived  to  discover  that  it  was  essential  to  the  political  welfare  of 
England  that  his  salary  should  be  continued;  he  discovered,  in  short,  that  as 
Sir  Charles  Stuart  had  a  large  allowance,  because  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Regency,  so  he  (the  right  honourable  gentleman)  ought  to  have  a  large  allow- 
ance, because  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  Regency.  The  rest  of  this  letter 
of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  was  unimportant,  except  as  it  displayed 
talents  for  finance,  which,  although  in  this  instance  elicited  for  his  own  ad- 
vantage, it  was  to  be  hoped  he  would  henceforward  contribute  to  the  public 
service,  and  in  support  of  his  friend  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  in  this 
season  of  financial  difficulty. 

From  all  these  documents  it  was  evident,  that  the  plain  and  almost  avowed 
purpose  of  the  mission  was,  to  procure  a  place  for  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man. He  was  therefore  sent,  with  a  salary  of  £  14,000  a  year,  to  a  capital 
where  there  was  no  court,  and  to  which,  even  while  it  had  a  court,  no  ambas- 
sador had  been  sent  for  almost  a  century.  He  superseded  a  deserving  servant 
of  the  public,  acting  there  as  envoy,  with  a  salary  of  £  5,000  a  year.  He  said, 
superseded  designedly,  for  Mr.  Sydenham's  intention  of  resigning  was  not 
known  to  Ministers  when  they  made  Mr.  Canning's  appointment,  and  when  he 
had  amassed  a  sufficient  sum,  or  when  a  place  was  provided  for  him,  or  when 
the  job  became  too  glaring  and  called  forth  the  public  censure,  he  left  the  im- 
portant business  of  the  Lisbon  mission  under  the  sole  guidance  of  a  charge 
d'affaires;  and  during  the  whole  of  this  mission,  the  only  duty  performed  by 
him  was  a  speech  to  the  factory.  The  defenders  of  this  mission  had  talked  of 
the  efforts  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  made  to  complete  the 
abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade;  and  one  of  his  friends,  on  a  former  occasion,  had 
said,  "that  if  there  was  the  least  chance  that  the  abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  231 

would  be  accelerated  by  this  measure,  the  opposers  of  the  appointment  of  the 
rig-lit  honourable  gentleman  should  pause  before  they  called  on  the  country  to 
pronounce  it  a  gross  and  scandalous  job."  He  could  prove,  however,  that  since 
the  appointment  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  the  trade  of  Portugal  in 
human  flesh  had  increased  instead  of  decreasing;  and  that  not  one  single  fa- 
vourable declaration  was  procured  from  the  Portuguese  Government  by  the 
efforts  of  the  Ambassador. 

Under  all  these  considerations,  he  called  on  the  House  to  come  to  a  decision 
on  the  merits  of  the  case.  He  had  now  to  put  to  the  test  the  sincerity  of  the 
professions  of  the  House,  of  economy  and  vigilance  over  the  extravagant  con- 
duct of  Ministers.  He  showed  them  a  case  in  which  the  public  money  had 
been  most  culpably  and  disgracefully  squandered; — no  sort  of  necessity  had 
been  shown  in  the  papers  which  the  Government  had  submitted  as  their  justi- 
cation;  on  the  contrary,  every  document  tended  to  prove  most  clearly  that  in 
no  one  instance  had  they  more  abused  the  confidence  reposed  in  them  by  Par- 
liament than  in  the  present.  If,  in  these  times  of  distress  and  discontent,  it 
was  important  for  the  House  to  acquire  a  reputation  for  strict  public  virtue,  and 
incorruptibility,  they  would  mark  their  sense  of  this  proceeding,  and  show  the 
people  that  they  still  retained  within  themselves  the  means  of  satisfying  their 
just  claims,  and  of  protecting  them  against  the  culpable  and  profligate  extrava- 
gance of  Ministers.     He  should  move  the  following  Resolutions: 

1.  "  That  it  appears  to  this  House,  that  on  the  18th  of  July  1814,  Lord  Vis- 
count Castlereagh  addressed  an  official  despatch  to  Thomas  Sydenham,  Esq., 
then  His  Majesty's  Minister  at  Lisbon,  acquainting  him  that  it  was  the  com- 
mand of  his  Royal  Highness  the  Prince  Regent,  that  during  his  residence  at 
the  Court  of  Portugal,  he  should  confine  his  personal  expenses  within  his  ordi- 
nary allowances  as  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Ministry  Plenipotentiary,  viz. 
£5,200  per  annum;  that  he  had  directed  Mr.  Casamajor  to  lose  no  time  in  re- 
moving the  mission  from  the  house  of  the  Marquis  de  Pombal,  and  that  he 
could  not  anticipate  any  public  grounds  for  continuing  the  expenditure  of  His 
Majesty's  servants  at  Lisbon  on  the  scale  on  which  it  had  been  conducted  du- 
ring the  war  in  the  Peninsula. 

2.  "That  it  appears  that  under  the  pretence  of  congratulating  the  Prince  of 
Brazil,  on  his  return  to  his  native  dominions,  the  Right  Honourable  George 
Canning  was  appointed  Ambassador  Extraordinary  to  the  court  of  Lisbon,  with 
the  increased  emoluments  and  allowances  belonging  to  that  character,  viz. 
£  8,200  as  salary,  £6,000  as  extraordinaries,  £  1,500  as  outfit,  and  £  3,180  as 
plate  money,  amounting  in  the  whole  to  the  sum  of  eighteen  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  eighty  pounds. 

3.  "  That  such  an  appointment,  on  such  a  scale  of  expense,  appears  to  this 
House  inconsistent  with  the  recorded  declaration  in  Lord  Castleroagh's  de- 
spatch to  Mr.  Sydenham,  of  the  18th  of  July  1814;  was  uncalled  for  by  any 
change  in  the  circumstances  of  the  mission  subsequent  to  Mr.  Sydenham's  ap- 
pointment; and  has  been  attended  with  an  unnecessary  and  unjustifiable  waste 
of  the  public  money.'' 


After  the  speech  of  Admiral  Sir  John  Beresford,  there  was  a  considerable 
pause  in  the  House, — Sir  Francis  Burdett  alone  having  spoken  in  support  of 
Mr.  Lambton's  Motion.  At  length,  no  other  Member  offering  himself,  and  the 
Question  being  about  to  be  put  from  the  chair, 

Mr.  Canning  rose,  and  spoke  nearly  as  follows: — 

Sir, — Upon  a  question  which,  however  disguised  in  form,  I 
cannot  but  feel  in  common  with  every  Member  who  hears  me — 


232  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

in  common  with  the  honourable  mover  of  the  Resolutions,  and  in 
common  with  the  honourable  baronet,  who  has  fairly  stated  the 
real  object  in  view, — to  be  an  attack  directed  against  me  individ- 
ually, I  trust  I  shall  not  be  considered  as  having  shown  any  blame- 
able  reluctance  in  pausing  before  I  offered  myself  to  the  attention 
of  the  House.  Sir,  I  could  not  bring  myself  to  believe,  that,  in 
the  two  speeches  of  the  honourable  mover,  and  the  honourable 
baronet,  I  had  heard  the  whole  of  what  is  to  be  alleged  against 
me;  and  yet  I  must  suppose  that,  if  others  intended  to  add  their 
weight  to  the  accusation,  I  must  suppose  that,  in  a  case  in  which 
every  thing  that  is  dear  to  man,  in  character,  in  reputation,  and  in 
honour,  is  at  stake,  they  would  have  had  the  fairness  to  give  to 
the  accused  an  advantage  which  is  not  withholden  from  the  mean- 
est criminal, — that  of  hearing  the  whole  indictment  to  which  he 
is  to  plead. 

If,  after  a  year  of  menace,  and  after  three  months  of  prepara- 
tion, from  amidst  all  the  array  which  I  see  opposed  to  me,  these* 
are  my  only  accusers;  if  the  speeches  which  I  have  heard,  contain 
the  whole  of  the  charges  which   are  to  be  urged  against  me; 
charges,  which  those  who  bring  them  forward,  state  to  be  direct- 
ed to  no  other  object  than  the  public  weal, — but  which  I  know, 
and  which  they  know,  to  be  intended  to  disqualify  me  for  ever 
from  serving  the  public  with  credit  to  myself  or  with  advantage 
to  the  state;  if  this  be  all, — it  falls,  indeed,  far  short  of  the  expec- 
tations excited  by  such   mighty  menace  and  by  such  deliberate 
preparation?   But,  Sir,  if  this  is  not  all, — if  there  are  gentlemen, 
who  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  aggravate  the  matter  prefer- 
red against  me, — whose  speeches,  prepared  for  the  occasion  and 
now  throbbing  in  their  breasts,  are  reserved  till  I  shall  be  disabled 
from  answering  them, — from  such  I  appeal  to  the  candour  of  the 
House  and  of  the  world;  declaring,  and  desiring  it  to  be  under- 
stood, both  within  and  without  the  walls  of  this  House,  that  if  I 
do  not  refute  what  they  may  hereafter  advance  against  me,  it  will 
be  only  because  I  am  precluded  by  the  forms  of  the  House  from 
speaking  a  second  time  (cries  of  No,  no.)     Oh,  Sir,  I  am  not  to 
be  told  that  the  motion  consists  of  a  string  of  Resolutions — that 
each  Resolution  is  a  separate  question — and  that  upon  each  sepa- 
rate question  I  may  speak: — but  neither  are  my  accusers  to  be 
told  that  this  is  technical  nonsense: — that  the  effective  debate  must 
take  place  upon  the  first  Resolution,  and  that  the  question  upon 
that  Resolution  once  put  to  the  vote,  I  should  be  heard  upon  those 
which  follow,  to  very  little  purpose  indeed. 

I  agree  with  the  honourable  baronet,  that  I  have  often  deplored 
and  deprecated;  and,  in  spite  of  the  honourable  baronet's  warn- 

*  Mr.  Lambton  and  Sir  Francis  Burdett. 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  233 

ing,  I  shall  continue  (not  for  myself  but  for  the  public  good)  to 
deprecate  and  to  deplore — the  practice  of  calumniating  public  men 
on  either  side  of  this  House,  by  imputing  to  them  motives  of  ac- 
tion, the  insinuation  of  which  would  not  be  tolerated  in  the  inter- 
course of  private  life.  If,  indeed,  I  shall  be  found  to  have  forfeit- 
ed all  claim  to  the  confidence  of  the  House,  the  honourable  baronet 
needs  not  fear  that  I  shall  again  offend  him  by  such  unpleasant 
animadversions.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  I  shall  be  fortunate 
enough  to  make  plain  to  others,  that  which  I  myself  confidently 
feel — my  perfect  clearness  from  any  of  the  imputations  attempted 
to  be  thrown  upon  me — the  honourable  baronet  may  depend  upon 
hearing  from  me  hereafter  the  same  language  which  I  have  used 
heretofore  on  this,  and  on  other  subjects  still  more  disagreeable  to 
the  honourable  baronet  and  his  followers. 

Sir,  the  charge  which  the  honourable  gentleman's  Resolutions 
involve,  is  this, — That  the  Government,  being  perfectly  aware 
that  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  had  no  intention  of  returning 
to  Europe,  pretended  a  belief  in  such  intention,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  corruptly  offering  that  mission  which  I  corruptly  ac- 
cepted. It  is  true,  that  a  distinction  is  most  disingenuously  affect- 
ed to  be  drawn  between  the  Government  and  me,  of  which  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  say,  that  I  disdain  to  take  advantage.  It  is 
pretended,  that  a  charge  is  brought  forward  only  against  the  Gov- 
ernment for  making  the  offer,  but  that  I  might  have  accepted  that 
offer,  if  not  altogether  without  blame,  at  least  without  absolute 
criminality.  Sir,  I  disclaim  this  insidious  distinction.  I  will  al- 
low no  such  exception  in  my  favour.  As  my  noble  friend  has 
claimed  that  my  case  shall  be  considered  as  that  of  the  Govern- 
ment; so  do  I  declare  on  my  part,  that  the  case  of  the  Govern- 
ment is  mine. 

The  jirst  head  of  charge,  therefore,  against  the  Government 
and  myself  is,  that  there  was  no  belief  on  the  part  of  the  Govern- 
ment, or  on  mine,  that  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  intended  to 
return  to  Europe:  the  second  is,  that  the  Mission  sent  to  receive 
and  congratulate  the  Prince  Regent  on  his  return  was  on  a  scale 
of  unnecessary,  unexampled,  profligate  prodigality.  To  both 
these  issues,  distinctly,  I  mean  to  plead.  All  that  I  require  of 
those  who  are  to  judge  me  is,  that  they  will  keep  these  two  is- 
sues separate  in  their  minds:  that  they  will  not  confound  them,  as 
has  been  industriously  done  in  the  speeches  of  the  honourable 
gentleman  and  the  honourable  baronet.  If  a  fraud  were  purposed 
— if  the  Government  did  believe  in  the  return  of  the  Royal  Fam- 
ily of  Portugal — there  is  crime  enough  for  an  impeachment,  if 
you  will,  without  entering  into  the  question  of  expense.  In  that 
case  the  expense  of  one  farthing  was  too  much.  But  if,  on  the 
contrary,  the  Government  was  sincere  in  its  belief  of  the  occasion 
32  v* 


234  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON- 

for  the  appointment  when  they  made  it, — and  I,  when  I  accepted 
it then  the  question  of  expense  is  indeed  a  fair  subject  of  par- 
liamentary jealousy  (I  am  far  from  denying  that  it  is  so;)  but  the 
amount  of  that  expense  must  be  estimated,  with  reference  to  its 
object,  and  not  upon  the  unfair  and  fallacious  assumption  that  there 
Avas  no  occasion  for  any  expense  at  all. 

As  to  the  first  point,  if  I  were  pleading  for  myself  alone,  all 
that  it  would  be  necessary  for  me  to  do,  would  be  to  refer  to  one 
only  of  the  papers  before  the  House: — the  extract  of  Lord  Strang- 
ford's  despatch  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  dated  Rio  de  Janeiro,  June 
21st,  1814.     It  is  in  these  words: — 

"  The  glorious  events  which  have  given  peace  and  independence  to  Europe, 
have  revived  in  the  mind  of  the  Prince  of  Brazil  those  eager  desires  to  revisit 
his  native  country,  which  had  been  for  a  time  suppressed. 

"His  Royal  Highness  has  done  me  the  honour  to  state  his  anxious  hope  that 
Great  Britain  will  facilitate  the  completion  of  his  wishes  upon  this  subject;  and 
that  he  may  return  to  Portugal  under  the  same  protection  as  that  under  which 
he  left  it." 

The  despatch,  of  which  this  is  an  extract,  was,  in  fact,  the  only 
one  upon  the  subject  that  I  happened  to  see  before  I  went  to  Por- 
tugal. 

Before  I  proceed  further,  I  must  here  vindicate  my  noble  friend 
the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Foreign  Department,  from  the  al- 
legation of  the  honourable  gentleman,  that  my  noble  friend  stu- 
diously delayed,  or  wilfully  confounded,  the  papers  moved  for  by 
the  honourable  gentleman  or  his  friends.     The  honourable  gentle- 
man accuses  my  noble  friend  of  having  produced  a  despatch,  ad- 
dressed to  me  by  Lord  Bathurst  (No.  2,  of  the  papers  first  pre- 
sented to  Parliament,)  instead  of  the  despatch  of  my  noble  friend 
to  Mr.  Sydenham  of  the   18th  of  July — well   knowing  that  this 
latter  wras  the  paper  really  moved  for.     Now,  Sir,  I  cannot  pre- 
tend to  say  in  what  terms  the  motion  of  the  honourable  gentleman 
was  conceived:  I  was  not  in  the  House  (so  far  as  I  know)  when 
he  made  it.     The  first  knowledge  that  I  had  of  it  was  from  a  note 
of  my  noble  friend,  inclosing  a  copy  of  the  despatch  addressed  to 
me  by  Lord  Bathurst;   informing  me  that  this  despatch  was  to  be 
laid  before  the  House  of  Commons;  and  desiring  to  know  whether 
there  were  any  papers  which  I  might  wish  to  be  produced  in  or- 
der to  meet  the  charge,  whatever  it  might  be,  which  appeared,  by 
the  call  for  this  despatch,  to  be  meditated  against  me.     This  was 
a  courtesy  which  my  noble  friend,  or  any  Minister,  would  have 
equally  shown  to  any  other  individual  menaced  with  a  parlia- 
mentary attack,  and  I  only  mention  it,  as  affording  a  strong  proof 
of  the  sincerity  of  my  noble  friend's  belief  that  the  paper  first 
produced  was  that  which  had  been  moved  for  by  the  honourable 
gentleman.    Lord  Strangford's  despatch  being  (as  I  have  said)  the 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  235 

only  document  that  I  happened  ever  to  have  seen,  relating  to  the 
Prince  Regent  of  Portugal's  return,  it  was  the  only  one  that  oc- 
curred to  me  at  all  necessary  to  illustrate  that  matter.  It  was  the 
only  one,  therefore,  of  which,  with  that  view,  I  suggested  the  pro- 
duction; and,  upon  looking  it  over — as  I  was  extremely  desirous 
to  bring  forward  nothing  but  what  was  absolutely  necessary — I 
thought  the  two  or  three  sentences,  which  are  given  in  the  first 
set  of  papers  presented  to  the  House,  amply  sufficient.  I  knew, 
indeed,  that  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal's  intention  of  return- 
ing to  Europe  had  been  questioned;  but  it  was  not  until  after  the 
production  of  these  papers  that  I  had  any  suspicion  that  it  was  de- 
nied. The  honourable  gentleman  now  professes  that  his  intention 
was  to  move,  not  for  any  despatch  to  me,  but  for  a  despatch  to 
Mr.  Sydenham.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  in  that  case,  that  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman  did  not  mention  Mr.  Sydenham's  name  in  his 
motion,  which  would  have  obviated  any  possibility  of  misappre- 
hension. I  am  not  without  my  suspicions,  indeed,  that  if  in  re- 
turn to  the  honourable  gentleman's  ambiguous  motion  my  noble 
friend  had  laid  upon  the  table  the  despatch  to  Mr.  Sydenham,  he 
would  then  have  been  accused  of  keeping  back  the  despatch  to 
me.  In  truth,  Sir,  if  the  honourable  gentlemen  wanted  complete 
information,  their  obvious  course  was  to  move  for  all  despatches 
relating  to  the  subject  in  question,  within  a  certain  specified  pe- 
riod. But  if  their  object  was  to  feel  their  way,  paper  by  paper, 
in  order  that  they  might  proceed  or  not,  according  as  the  informa- 
tion obtained  by  their  successive  motions  should  or  should  not 
correspond  with  the  prejudices  which  they  had  endeavoured  to 
raise;  why,  then,  Sir,  perhaps  they  had  not  gone  far  in  this  course 
of  discovery  before  they  repented  of  having  engaged  in  it. 

But  to  return  to  the  despatch  of  Lord  Strangford. — The  extract 
from  that  despatch  which  I  have  just  read,  appeared  to  me  quite 
sufficient  to  establish  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal's  intention. — 
I  confess,  indeed,  that  my  belief  in  that  event  rested  on  authority 
short  even  of  this  extract.  It  rested  on  the  authority  of  a  private 
letter  from  Lord  Liverpool,  received  by  me  on  the  28th  August, 
at  a  considerable  distance  from  London;  which, — though  it  is  not 
pleasant  to  quote  in  public  discussion  the  contents  of  private  let- 
ters, I  will  now  (having  my  noble  friend's  permission,)  read  to 
the  House.     It.  is  dated  London,  August  2Gth,  1834. 

"  Letters  have  been  tliis  flay  received  from  Lord  Strangford,  by  which  it  ap- 
pears that  the  Prince  of  Brazil  lias  intimated  his  desire  "to  return  to  Portugal 
(in  consequence  of  the  recent  events  in  Europe,)  and  the  gratification  which  he 
would  feel  at  the  arrival  of  ;i  British  squadron  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  conveying  the  royal  family  to  Lisbon. 

"Under  these  circumstances,  Melville  has  given  orders  for  preparing  a  prop- 
er sepjadron  for  this  service,  and  it  will  sail  as  soon  as  the  necessary  arrange- 
ments can  be  completed.1' 


236  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

This  letter,  Sir,  I  received  on  the  28th  of  August  at  Manches- 
ter, in  my  way  from  London  to  a  distant  part  of  the  country, 
from  whence  I  had  no  thoughts  of  returning  till  the  middle  of 
September.  My  right  honourable  friend,  now  sitting  near  me 
(Mr.  Huskisson,)  was  with  me  when  I  received  it.  Now,  the 
hypothesis  of  my  accusers  is,  that  the  whole  notion  of  the  Prince 
Regent's  return  was  a  feint  and  a  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, if  not  on  mine.  But,  I  ask  of  any  candid  man,  if  he 
can  believe,  I  ask  of  any  man  living,  if  he  will  avow  the  belief, 
that  supposing  a  fraud  to  have  been  intended,  it  is  likely  that  such 
a  letter  as  this  from  Lord  Liverpool,  written  in  the  unguarded 
style  of  private  friendship,  and  addressed  (as  any  gentleman  who 
would  take  the  trouble  to  look  at  it  would  see  that  it  is)  Avith  the 
usual  formulary  of  the  most  familiar  correspondence,  should  have 
been  one  of  the  documents  got  up  for  such  a  purpose  ?  Is  it  like- 
ly, that  of  two  men,  known  to  each  other  by  nearly  thirty  years 
of  intimacy,  one  should  practise  such  a  delusion  upon  the  other? 
Or,  is  it  likely  that  two  such  men  should  carry  hypocrisy  so  far 
as  to  provide  beforehand  for  the  support  of  a  public  fraud,  by  the 
contrivance  of  such  a  private  communication? 

This  letter  from  Lord  Liverpool  was  founded  upon  that  des- 
patch from  Lord  Strangford  of  which  I  have  already  read  the  ex- 
tract, and  which  appears  at  full  length  in  the  papers  last  laid  upon 
the  table.  The  extract  was  moved  for  at  my  desire,  the  extract 
only,  when  I  conceived  that  my  justification  alone  was  in  ques- 
tion: the  whole  despatch  was  afterwards  moved  for,  also  at  my 
suggestion,  when  I  found  that  the  Government  were  suspected  of 
having  deceived  me  into  a  belief,  for  which  they  had  no  founda- 
tion.    I  will  now  take  the  liberty  of  reading  the  whole  despatch. 

Rio  de  Janeiro,  June  21,  1814. 

[Received  August  26th,  1814.] 
"  My  Lord, 

"  The  glorious  events  which  have  given  peace  and  independence  to  Europe, 
have  revived  in  the  mind  of  the  Prince  of  Brazil  those  eager  desires  to  revisit 
his  native  country,  which  had  been  for  a  time  suppressed. 

"  His  Royal  Highness  has  lately  done  me  the  honour  to  state  his  anxious 
hope,  that  Great  Britain  will  facilitate  the  completion  of  his  wishes  upon  this 
subject,  and  that  he  may  return  to  Portugal  under  the  same  protection  as  that 
under  which  he  left  it.  And  His  Royal  Highness  has,  during  the  last  week, 
intimated  to  me,  four  or  five  times,  as  well  publicly  as  privately,  that,  in  case 
Great  Britain  should  send  a  squadron  of  ships  of  war  to  this  place,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  escorting  His  Royal  Highness  to  Europe,  it  would  be  particularly  and 
personally  gratifying  to  His  Royal  Highness  that should  be  select- 
ed for  this  service. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c. 

"  Strangford. 

"To  Viscount  Castlereagh,  <Sf-c.  cf-c.  c$-c." 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  237 

(The  name  of  the  officer  is  omitted  from  motives  of  delicacy. 
Sir  John  Beresford  had  been  already  appointed  and  announced  to 
the  Court  of  Rio  de  Janeiro,  before  this  depatch  was  received.) 

Submit  this  document  to  any  man  in  the  habit  of  canvassing 
evidence,  and  ask  him,  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  it  that  could 
create  a  suspicion  of  the  sincerity  of  the  wish  which  it  announces? 
— whether  the  Government  could  reasonably  doubt  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  intelligence  conveyed  in  it,  any  more  than  I  doubted 
the  fidelity  of  the  abstract  of  that  intelligence  transmitted  to  me 
by  Lord  Liverpool?  A  man  might  say,  that  he  intended  to  go  a 
journey,  and  the  fact  of  his  entertaining  that  intention  might,  per- 
haps, not  be  considered  as  altogether  established  by  the  mere  in- 
timation of  it:  but,  when  he  ordered  his  carriage  to  the  door,  and 
named  the  servants  by  whom  he  wished  to  be  conducted,  then, 
surely,  one  would  consider  him  to  be  really  in  earnest. 

This  despatch,  however,  I  did  not  see  till  after  my  return  to 
London  in  September.  I  was  quite  satisfied  of  the  fact,  as  stated 
to  me  by  Lord  Liverpool.  Nothing  is  more  easy  than,  when  an 
event  has,  or  has  not,  actually  taken  place,  to  find  out  that  you 
ought  to  have  foreseen  how  likely,  or  to  have  discovered  how  un- 
likely, it  was  to  happen.  But  who  balances  probabilities  in  this 
way,  in  the  ordinary  transactions  of  life?  Who  is  the  wise  and 
happy  man  that  receives  every  friendly  communication  with  dis- 
trust; that  calls  for  proofs  of  the  most  credible  expectancies,  and 
deems  every  occurrence  problematical  till  it  has  actually  occurred? 
The  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  announced  to  the  British  Cabinet 
his  intention  of  returning;  he  requested  that  a  squadron  might  be 
sent  to  escort  him  to  Europe;  he  named  the  officer  by  whom  he 
wished  that  squadron  to  be  commanded:  yet  Ministers  were  to 
suspect  that  he  entertained  no  intention  of  the  kind!  For  myself, 
I  protest,  that  no  shadow  of  doubt  ever  crossed  my  mind,  as  to 
the  reality  of  this  intention.  Perhaps  it  may  have  been  rash  to 
believe:  if  so,  I  must  acknowledge  my  error.  But  when,  in  ad- 
dition to  such  positive  testimony,  I  considered  how  desirable  it 
was,  with  a  view  to  the  interests  of  the  Portuguese  Monarchy,  of 
this  country  and  of  the  world;  how  essential  to  the  complete  res 
toration  and  tranquillity  of  that  order  of  things  which  the  French 
Revolution  had  disjointed  and  broken  up,  that  Portugal,  now  sunk 
into  a  province,  should  resume  her  station  among  the  States  of  Eu- 
rope;— when  I  felt  that  no  efforts  of  the  British  Government 
ought  to  have  been  spared,  and  had  reason  to  be  assured  that  none 
had  been  spared,  to  induce  that  return,  I  confess  I  know  not  on 
what  I  could  have  founded  the  smallest  doubt  that  the  return  of 
the  Court  of  Portugal  was  really  determined  upon,  and  that  this 
determination  was  upon  the  eve  of  execution. 

It  may  be  true,  that  there  were,  as  has  been  asserted,  at  the  pre- 


23S  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

cise  period  to  which  I  am  alluding,  conflicting  reports  on  this  sub- 
ject; that  merchants  in  Lisbon  had  received  letters  from  their 
friends  in  Brazil,  contradicting  the  opinion  that  the  Prince  Regent 
would  return;  that  there  were  rumours  of  opposition  to  the  meas- 
ure in  the  councils  of  Rio  de  Janeiro;  and  that  persons,  supposed 
to  have  access  to  correct  intelligence,  avowed  the  conviction  that 
the  Court  would  remain  in  South  America.  If  there  were  such 
reports,  I  knew  nothing  of  them.  But  I  fairly  own  that  had  they 
come  distinctly  to  my  knowledge,  had  I  even  been  consulted  as 
to  the  weight  to  be  allowed  to  them,  I  should  have  considered  the 
British  Minister's  testimony  as  outweighing  them  all.  I  will  tell 
the  House  why  the  testimony  of  Lord  Strangford  would  have  had 
so  powerful  a  weight  with  me  on  this  subject.  In  1807,  at  the  time 
when  the  Court  of  Portugal  emigrated  to  the  Brazils,  I  had  the  hon- 
our to  fill  the  office  now  filled  by  my  noble  friend — (Lord  Castle- 
reagh.)  When  the  first  intelligence  of  the  intended  emigration 
reached  this  country,  there  was  then,  also,  an  abundance  of  con- 
flicting and  contradictory  reports;  and  I  believe  I  may  say  that 
for  several  days  I  alone,  in  London,  alone  perhaps  among  my  col- 
leagues, was  persuaded  of  the  existence  of  that  intention.  At 
that  time  I  knew  nothing  of  Lord  Strangford,  except  from  his 
official  correspondence:  but  that  correspondence  had  inspired  me 
with  a  full  reliance  upon  the  authenticity  of  his  sources  of  infor- 
mation, and  upon  his  knowledge  of  the  Prince  Regent's  mind; 
and  Lord  Strangford  all  along  affirmed  that  the  Prince  Regent  in- 
tended to  emigrate.  The  general  persuasion  at  Lisbon  was  that 
the  Court  would  not  emigrate;  even  up  to  the  very  day,  when,  as 
Lord  Strangford  had  predicted,  the  Prince  actually  embarked  in 
the  Tagus,  and  set  sail  for  Brazil. 

My  belief,  therefore,  in  the  present  instance  was  founded,  first, 
on  positive  information, — secondly,  on  the  obvious  desirableness 
of  the  return  of  the  Prince  Regent  to  Europe,  and  on  the  certain- 
ty that  this  country  must  have  used  all  means  of  counsel  and  per- 
suasion to  ensure  that  event.  I  was  persuaded  both  of  the  reality 
of  the  intention,  and  of  the  probability  of  its  instant  execution. 
Nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  had  come  to  my  knowledge  that 
could  excite  a  reasonable  distrust.  But  even  had  such  distrust 
been  excited  in  my  mind  by  any  rumour,  or  any  testimony  less 
than  official,  it  would  have  been  dispelled  by  the  assurances  of 
Lord  Strangford.  Such  was  my  belief,  my  credulity,  if  you  will 
— but  a  credulity  of  which  I  have  assigned  the  grounds — a  cre- 
dulity which  was  assuredly  not  so  fatuitous  as  to  be  fairly  con- 
strued into  crime. 

I  must,  however,  beg  not  to  have  it  understood  that  my  belief 
in  the  return  of  the  Prince  Regent  at  once  determined  my  accept- 
ance of  the  mission;  though  it  might  have  done  so,  for  aught  that 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  23^ 

I  can  see,  without  blame.  Undoubtedly  no  earthly  consideration 
would  have  induced  me  to  accept  it  without  an  assurance  as  to 
that  return:  but  it  required  a  combination  of  other  circumstances, 
with  which  I  need  not  trouble  the  House,  to  induce  me  to  go  in 
an  official  character  to  Lisbon;  and  in  fact  my  acceptance  was  not 
determined  till  after  my  return  to  town,  late  in  September. 

The  Government  had  stronger  grounds  for  their  belief  than  I 
had.  They  had  before  them  the  communications  contained,  or 
referred  to,  in  the  papers  last  submitted  to  the  House: — letters, 
namely,  from  Lord  Strangford,  of  so  early  a  date  as  February, 
and  the  autograph  letter  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  to  the 
Prince  Regent  of  Great  Britain,  dated  the  2nd  of  April.  Of 
these  I  knew  nothing  till  the  other  day,  when  the  honourable 
gentleman's  inquiries  and  denunciations  led  to  an  examination  of 
the  correspondence  in  the  Foreign  Office.  This  autograph  letter 
disproves  the  notion  of  the  honourable  gentleman,  that  there  was 
an  interval  between  the  month  of  February  and  the  month  of 
August  in  the  communications  respecting  the  Prince  Regent's  in- 
tended return.  This  letter  fills  up  the  supposed  chasm  in  the 
correspondence.  The  reason  why  a  copy  of  this  document  has 
not  been  laid  before  the  House,  is,  that  as  many  gentlemen  who 
hear  me  must  know,  it  is  contrary  to  the  etiquette  observed  to- 
wards Sovereign  Princes  so  to  make  their  letters  public.  The 
practice  is  for  the  Secretary  of  State  to  refer  to  the  substance  of 
such  letters  in  an  official  despatch  accompanying  them,  or  ac- 
knowledging their  receipt:  and  such  a  record  of  the  letter  in  ques- 
tion is  to  be  found  in  the  despatch  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to 
Lord  Strangford,  of  the  25th  of  July.  In  that  despatch,  this  au- 
tograph letter  is  noticed  as  stating  that  the  Prince  Regent  of  Por- 
tugal only  waited  for  intelligence  of  the  final  success  of  the  allies, 
in  order  to  determine  his  return  to  Europe. 

But  all  this  evidence,  all  this  testimony,  is,  it  seems,  to  be  con- 
sidered as  fallacious,  if  not  absolutely  false,  because  there  is  a 
solemn,  indubitable,  irrefragable  witness  at  variance  with  it — a 
paragraph  in  a  newspaper  of  the  29th  of  July,  which  announced 
my  actual  appointment  as  Ambassador  to  Portugal!  An  appoint- 
ment of  the  29th  of  July  could  not  be  in  consequence  of  informa- 
tion received  on  the  26th  of  August. — Clearly.  But  events  might 
be  contemplated  as  probable  before  the  29th  of  July,  which  in- 
telligence of  the  26th  of  August  might  confirm:  and  a  specula- 
tion might  be  founded  upon  those  probabilities,  contingent  upon 
their  fulfilment  or  non-fulfilment.  I  do  not  affirm  that  some  such 
speculation,  founded  on  some  such  possible  contingency,  but  ab- 
solutely dependent  for  its  realization  on  the  happening  or  not 
happening  of  that  contingency,  might  not  be  afloat  before  the 
29th  of  July.     The  despatch,  of  the  25th   of  July   (of  which, 


240  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

however,  any  more  than  of  the  autograph  letter  alluded  to  in  it, 
I  had  not  any  distinct  knowledge  till  it  was  brought  into  notice 
the  other  day  in  consequence  of  the  honourable  gentleman's  in- 
quiries)— the  date,  I  say,  of  this  despatch  renders  it  not  improba- 
ble that  it  may  have  been  about  that  time  that  a  mission  to  Por- 
tugal began  to  be  contemplated  as  probable.     But  that  I  was  at 
that  time,  or  near  that  time  appointed,  that  I  then  accepted  such 
appointment,  if  offered  to  me,  or  that  it  could  then  have  been  of- 
fered to  me,  if  I  had  been  willing  to  accept  it,  I  utterly  deny.     I 
deny  here,  Sir,  in  your  presence,  and  in  the  presence  of  my  coun- 
try, that  which  has  been  assumed  as  established  because  I  did  not 
deny  it  when  asserted  in  a  newspaper.     Sir,  I  value  as  much  as 
any  man  the  liberty  of  the  press;  I  acknowledge  its  utility,  I 
bow  to  its  power;  in  common  with  all  public  men,  I  listen  to  its 
suggestions,  and  receive  its  chastisements,  with  all  due  humility 
and  thankfulness:  but  I  will  not  plead  at  its  bar!    I  will  continue 
to  treat  with  scorn  the  attacks  of  anonymous  malice.     I  disdain 
to  make  any  answer  to  such  charges,  whilst  there  is  a  House  of 
Commons  before  which  I  can  vindicate  my  character.     This  is 
the  place  where  it  is  my  right  as  well  as  my  duty  to  plead,  before 
a  competent  tribunal,  and  in  the  face  of  known  and  accountable 
accusers.     And  in  behalf  of  all  that  is  sacred  and  decent  in  pri- 
vate life,  as  well  as  in  behalf  of  the  honour  of  public  men,  I  pro- 
test against  the  inference,  that  he  is  to  be  held  guilty  of  a  charge, 
who  resolutely  declines  to  answer  it  at  the  bar  of  the  daily  press. 
But  the  newspaper  had,  it  seems,  announced  not  only  that  I 
was  appointed  Ambassador  to  Lisbon;  but  that  my  right  honour- 
able friend  near  me  (Mr.  Huskisson,)  was  appointed  Surveyor  of 
the  Woods  and  Forests,  and   my  right  honourable   friend   (Mr. 
W.  W.  Pole,)  at  the  end  of  the  bench,  Master  of  the  Mint;  both 
which  nominations  were  immediately  verified.     It  is  very  true 
that  the  latter  office  was  shortly  afterwards  filled  by  my  right 
honourable  friend   (Mr.  W.  W.  Pole,)  who  has  discharged  the 
duties  of  it  with  so  much  honour  to  himself,  and  advantage  to 
the  public:   but  I  disclaim  in  the  most  peremptory  terms  any 
merit  or  influence  of  mine  in  that  appointment.     My  right  hon- 
ourable friend  (Mr.  Huskisson)  near  me,  was,  it  is  also  true,  ap- 
pointed to  the  office  of  Surveyor  of  Woods,  and  undoubtedly 
not  without  my  intervention.    On  the  30th  of  July  I  think  it  was 
that  I  moved  the  new  writ  for  my  right  honourable  friend.     I 
moved  that  writ  for  the  express  purpose  of  showing  that  I  ap- 
proved, and  was  party  to,  the  accession  of  my  right  honourable 
friend,  and  of  other  friends  of  mine,  to  the  Administration.     And 
had  I  myself  accepted  office  at  that  time,  I   should  have  been 
equally  ready,  nay,  anxious  to  avow  it.     At  different  periods  of 
my  political  life,  I  have  held,  I  have  resigned,  I  have  refused,  and 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  241 

I  have  accepted  office.  And  there  is  no  occasion  on  which  I  have 
taken  either  of  these  courses,  on  which  I  am  not  perfectly  pre- 
pared to  vindicate  (I  will  not  say  always  the  prudence,  but  I  will 
say  confidently)  the  purity  and  honourableness  of  my  conduct. 

I  know,  Sir,  how  difficult  it  is  to  speak  plainly  on  subjects  of 
this  nature,  without  transgressing  the  decorum,  if  not  the  strict 
order  of  our  debates.  But  is  it  brought  as  an  accusation  against 
me,  that,  having  no  difference  of  opinion  with  the  Administration, 
I  did  not  neglect  an  opportunity  which  presented  itself  of  furnish- 
ing an  accession  of  strength  to  that  Administration,  which  I  wish- 
ed to  strengthen  and  uphold  ?  Why  ought  I  to  have  declined 
this?  And  by  whom  am  I  accused  for  not  declining  it?  By  those 
who  consider  the  principle  of  party  as  a  virtue — as  a  badge  of 
distinction,  and  a  pledge  of  purity,  when  predicated  of  themselves; 
but  who  are  intolerant  of  any  party,  presuming  to  connect  itself 
together,  except  under  their  banners.  And,  what  is  the  bond  of 
party  ?  what  are  the  boasted  ties  that  connect  the  honourable  gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side  of  the  House  with  each  other  ?  Fidelity 
in  private  friendship,  as  well  as  consistency  in  public  principle. 
Their  theory  of  party  is  a  theory  which  they  would  confine  ex- 
clusively to  their  own  practice.  One  may  become  a  satellite  in 
their  system,  and  welcome;  but  any  eccentric  planet,  moving  in 
another  system,  they  view  with  jealous,  yet  with  scornful  eyes, 
and  denounce  its  course  as  baleful  and  destructive.  To  this  ex- 
clusive doctrine  I  have  never  subscribed.  To  these  pretensions  I 
have  never  listened  with  submission.  I  have  never  deemed  it 
reasonable  that  any  confederacy  of  great  names  should  monopo- 
lize to  themselves  the  whole  patronage  and  authority  of  the  state: 
should  constitute  themselves,  as  it  were,  into  a  corporation,  a  bank 
for  circulating  the  favours  of  the  Crown  and  the  suffrages  of  the 
people,  and  distributing  them  only  to  their  own  adherents.  I  can- 
not consent  that  the  administration  of  the  Government  of  this  free 
and  enlightened  country  shall  be  considered  as  rightfully  belong- 
ing to  any  peculiar  circle  of  public  men,  however  powerful,  or  of 
families  however  preponderant;  and  though  I  cannot  stand  lower 
in  the  estimation  of  the  honourable  baronet  than  I  do  in  my  own, 
as  to  my  own  pretensions,  I  will  (to  use  the  language  of  a  states- 
man,* so  eminent  that  I  cannot  presume  to  quote  his  words  with- 
out an  apology,)  I  will,  as  long  as  I  have  the  faculty  to  think  and 
act  for  myself,  "  look  those  proud  combinations  in  the  face."  I 
plead  guilty,  then,  to  the  charge,  if  it  be  one,  of  having  treated 
with  an  Administration,  with  the  principles  of  which  I  per- 
fectly agreed.  I  plead  guilty  to  the  charge,  if  it  be  one,  of  having 
on  this,  aye,  and  on  other  occasions,  postponed  my  own  interest 

*  Mr.  Burke. 
33  w 


242  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

to  that  of  my  friends.  If,  indeed,  the  charge  could  be  turned  the 
other  way;  if,  occupied  exclusively  with  any  personal  objects  of 
my  own,  it  could  be  said  that  I  had  neglected  the  claims,  the  in- 
terests, or  the  feelings  of  any  individual  connected  with  me  in 
political  life,  I  should,  indeed,  hear  that  charge  with  sensations 
very  different  from  those  which  I  now  experience:  then,  indeed, 
should  I  hide  my  head  with  shame. 

When  I  moved  the  writ  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  on  the 
30th  of  July,  I  declare,  upon  my  honour,  that  I  thought  it  very 
doubtful  whether  I  should  myself  have  any  official  connexion 
whatever  with  the  Government.  I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  the 
question  had  not  been  mooted,  as  to  my  undertaking  the  mission 
to  Portugal,  if  it  should  turn  out  that  such  a  mission  was  to  be 
sent.  But  many  circumstances  might  have  prevented  the  result 
that  did  afterwards  happen.  I  was  not  pledged,  I  was  very  far 
from  having  made  up  my  own  mind,  to  accept  the  mission  if  it 
should  be  offered  to  me;  nor  had  the  Government,  as  yet,  any  as- 
surance that  they  should  have  it  to  offer.  I  had  previously  made 
arrangements  of  my  own.  My  plans  were  to  go  where  I  did  go, 
but  from  different  motives  and  with  a  different  object.  What  that 
object  and  those  motives  were,  I  am  not  called  upon,  nor  do  I 
think  it  necessary  to  state  in  this  place.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  to 
say  that  I  was  master  of  my  own  actions,  and  that  I  chose  to  go. 
My  intention  was  known  to  my  private  friends,  and  had  been 
communicated  to  my  constituents  two  months  before  the  close  of 
the  session. 

The  first  official  tender  of  the  mission  was  made  to  me  by  my 
noble  friend,  the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  I  think  about  the 
end  of  the  first  week  of  August: — I  cannot  be  positive  as  to  the 
day;  but  I  recollect  perfectly  that  I  had  but  two  interviews  with 
my  noble  friend  upon  the  subject,  within  a  few  days  of  each 
other, — and  that  at  the  date  of  one  of  those  interviews,  Mr.  Sy- 
denham had  arrived  in  England.  He  arrived  on  or  about  the  8th 
of  August.  My  noble  friend  was  then  on  the  eve  of  his  depart- 
ure for  Vienna.  His  tender  to  me  was  altogether  contingent  and 
conditional.  The  way  in  which  the  matter  was  left,  was  this;  that 
if  the  certainty  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal's  immediate 
return  should  be  established,  I  should  hear  from  him  (or,  in  his  ab- 
sence, from  Lord  Liverpool)  again.  I  did  hear  again,  in  the  man- 
ner that  I  have  stated;  but,  in  proof  that  I  had  not,  in  the  mean 
time,  acted  on  the  presumption  that  I  should  go  out  in  an  official 
character,  I  can  appeal  to  some  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Admiralty  who  sit  near  me,  that  I  was,  so  late  as  in  the  month 
of  September,  a  supplicant  at  the  Admirality,  as  a  private  person, 
for  a  ship  to  convey  me  and  my  family  to  Lisbon;  and  when  I 
arrived  in  Portugal,  I  found  a  house  provided  for  me,  as  a  private 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  243 

person,  through  the  kindness  of  a  friend, — a  house  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Lisbon,  which,  in  my  official  character,  I  could  not 
occupy. 

But  all  this,  it  may  be  said,  was  but  contrivance, — an  artificial 
chain  of  circumstances  forged  and  linked  together,  with  a  view 
to  the  present  discussion.  Has  such  an  imputation  the  colour  of 
probability  ?  What  I  have  now  stated  both  as  to  facts  and  motives 
is  the  truth.  If  any  man  shall  contradict  this  statement,  I  can 
only  say  that  he  will  affirm  that  which  is  not  true.  Where  a 
matter  rests — and  from  a  nature  must  rest  solely — on  the  con- 
sciousness of  an  individual,  there  is  no  other  answer  (that  I  know 
of)  to  be  given  to  an  arbitrary  contradiction.  I  speak  this,  I  hope, 
without  offence.  But,  on  this  part  of  my  case,  I  know  of  no  other 
possible  answer. 

I  did  believe  then  in  the  intention  of  the  Prince  Regent  to  re- 
turn. The  Government  believed  in  it.  Their  belief  would  have 
been  ground  enough  for  mine.  But  I  have  shown  that  they  had 
good  grounds  for  their  belief.  Further,  it  appears,  from  what  has 
been  stated  by  the  gallant  admiral  behind  me,  (Sir  John  Beres- 
ford,)  in  anticipation  of  a  question  which  I  might  perhaps  have 
taken  the  liberty  to  put  to  him,  that  not  only  had  the  royal  family 
really  entertained  that  intention,  but  that  the  disposition  to  carry 
it  into  execution  survived  the  report  of  its  abandonment;  that 
he  was  repeatedly  requested  by  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  to 
defer  his  departure  from  Rio  de  Janeiro  from  time  to  time,  in 
hopes  that  the  next  arrivals  from  Europe  might  bring  intelligence 
decisive  of  the  voyage;  and  that  it  was  not  until  the  beginning 
of  April  that  those  hopes  were  finally  relinquished,  and  the  gal- 
lant admiral  permitted  to  take  his  leave. 

Contrary  and  contradictory  rumours  did,  no  doubt,  continue  to 
prevail  on  this  subject,  in  London,  as  they  certainly  did  in  Lis- 
bon. Even  when  I  received  at  Lisbon,  in  the  beginning  of 
April  1815,  the  first  intimation  from  England  on  which  I  found- 
ed my  resignation,  I  was  in  possession  of  most  positive  assurances 
the  other  way;  and  on  the  very  day  on  which  I  sent  off  my  re- 
signation, I  had  heard  through  what  I  might  have  considered  as 
authentic  channels,  that  the  Prince  would  certainly  embark. 
The  day  was  specified  on  which  the  embarkation  was  to  take 
place;  and  we  were  to  look  for  the  first  news  of  that  event  in 
the  arrival  of  the  squadron  off  the  bar.  But  did  I  act  on  this  in- 
formation? Did  I  endeavour  to  shake  any  credit  which  the  Gov- 
ernment at  home  might  be  disposed  to  give  to  their  accounts  from 
Rio  de  Janeiro?  Did  I  contrast  the  rumours  of  Lisbon  with  the 
rumours  of  London,  for  the  purpose  of  clinging  to  my  office? 
No.  It  appears,  from  the  papers  on  the  table,  that  upon  the  29th 
of  March  the  information  of  the  Prince  Regent's  abandonment 


244  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

of  his  design  was  received  here  in  an  official  shape.  Probably  this 
official  information  must  have  been  preceded  some  days  by  private 
intelligence.  The  intimation  which  reached  me  on  the  9th  of 
April  certainly  was  not  official;  I  did  not  wait,  however,  for  its 
official  confirmation:  on  the  10th  of  April,  I  wrote  and  sent  off 
by  an  express  packet  the  following  despatch  to  the  Foreign 
Office: 

"  By  the  mails  which  came  in  yesterday,  I  learn,  (though  not  officially,)  that 
the  accounts  received  in  England  from  Rio  de  Janeiro  since  Admiral  Sir  John 
Beresford's  arrival  there,  create  a  doubt  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal's 
present  intention  to  return  to  his  European  dominions. 

" Nothing  has  been  received  here  from  the  Brazils,  which  indicates  any  such 
change  in  His  Royal  Highness's  intention.  But  should  any  impediments  have 
been  interposed  to  delay  the  execution  of  it,  until  the  intelligence  of  the  late 
astonishing  and  afflicting  revolution  in  the  state  of  Europe  shall  reach  Rio  de 
Janeiro,  it  is  possible  that  the  receipt  of  that  intelligence  may  determine  His 
Royal  Highness  to  remain  there  for  the  present. 

"In  that  case,  or  in  the  event  of  your  lordship's  receiving  such  positive  ac- 
counts, as  satisfy  your  lordship's  mind  that  such  a  determination  has  been  taken 
by  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal,  I  have  to  request  your  lordship,  to  lay  at 
the  feet  of  His  Royal  Highness,  the  Prince  Regent,  my  humble  resignation  of 
the  commission  with  which  he  was  graciously  pleased  to  honour  me,  in  con- 
templation of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal's  return." 

So  much  for  the  first  head  of  the  charge  against  me,  and  against 
the  Government.  I  have  shown,  I  hope  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
House,  that  we  did  believe  in  the  return  of  the  Court  of  Portu- 
gal to  Europe; — that  we  had  good  grounds  for  that  belief; — and 
that,  upon  that  belief  exclusively,  any  mission  to  Lisbon  was 
founded. 

It  remains  to  be  considered,  whether  upon  that  ground,  such  a 
mission  was  necessary  or  justifiable.  And  this  question  again 
divides  itself  into  two  heads;  first,  whether  necessary  at  all; 
secondly,  (if  admitted  to  be  necessary,)  whether  conducted  on  a 
scale  of  disproportionate  expense — disproportionate  either  to  the 
unavoidable  expenditure  of  the  mission,  or  to  its  political  im- 
portance. 

In  the  first  of  these  questions — Was  an  embassy  to  Lisbon  ne- 
cessary, in  the  event  of  the  Prince  Regent's  return  ? — is  involved 
another  more  personal  question,  from  which  I  must  not  shrink: — 
namely — Was  there  any  unfitness  in  the  offer  of  that  mission  to 
me,  or  in  my  acceptance  of  it? — I  feel  all  the  difficulty  of  argu- 
ing this  point  in  a  manner  at  once  satisfactory  to  the  House  and 
not  unjust  to  myself.  It  is  distasteful  and  revolting  to  one's  feel- 
ings to  be  obliged  to  speak  of  one's-self,  and  of  one's  own  fitness 
for  any  situation,  or  any  undertaking.  But  it  will  be  remembered, 
that  I  am  upon  my  trial — that  I  am  defending  myself  against  a 
criminal  charge;  and  if  in  such  a  defence,  something  like  egotism 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  245 

should  be  unavoidable,  I  hope  the  House  will  have  the  goodness 
to  excuse  it. 

Sir,  to  place  this  question  in  its  true  point  of  view,  I  must  once 
more  go  back  to  the  year  1807.  I  have  said  that  when  in  that 
year  the  royal  family  of  Portugal  adopted  the  resolution  of  emi- 
grating to  the  Brazils,  I  had  the  honour  to  hold  the  Seals  of  the 
Foreign  Office.  I  had  thus  an  opportunity  of  becoming  acquaint- 
ed with  the  wishes  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  in  favour  of 
Lord  Strangford,  who  had  been  employed  to  advise  and  to  urge 
that  splendid  and  magnanimous  emigration.  It  was  my  duty  to 
report  these  wishes,  and  to  recommend  the  services  of  Lord 
Strangford  to  the  consideration  of  my  royal  master.  The  result 
was,  that  his  lordship  was  appointed  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary;  was  invested  with  a  red  riband;  and 
might  also  have  received  an  advance  in  the  peerage — which  (for 
reasons  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  this  night's  discussion)  he  de- 
clined. There  was,  however,  another  point  respecting  which  the 
Court  of  Portugal  was  extremely  solicitous, — a  reciprocation  of 
missions  of  the  highest  rank :  and  this  point,  from  the  period  of 
which  I  am  speaking  to  the  last  moment  at  which  I  held  the  Seals 
of  Office,  the  Portuguese  Minister  never  lost  an  opportunity  of 
pressing  upon  my  attention.  It  has  been  said,  by  shrewd  ob- 
servers of  domestic  politics,  that  when  once  a  coronet  gets  into  a 
man's  head  there  is  no  driving  it  out  again:  and  I  believe  it  may 
be  as  justly  said,  that  when  once  a  Court  takes  up  the  notion  of 
reciprocation  of  embassies,  it  is  no  easy  matter  to  get  the  better 
of  it.  Such  a  notion  reproduces  itself  on  every  occasion.  A  Sec- 
retary of  State  is  to  be  assailed  with  repeated  solicitation  till  the 
favourite  measure  is  accomplished. 

To  this  application  I  at  that  time  did  not  listen.  And  I  believe 
I  reconciled  the  Court  of  Portugal  to  the  refusal  of  it,  by  showing 
that  it  could  not  then  be  granted  in  the  person  of  Lord  Strangford; 
whose  diplomatic  standing  would  not  admit  of  such  an  advance- 
ment— having  been  already  so  recently  raised  from  the  station  of 
Charge-d' Affaires.  I  promised,  however,  that  on  the  occurrence 
of  any  signal  event  which  might  constitute  a  proper  occasion  for 
an  embassy,  (and  the  two  possible  events  in  contemplation  were 
either  the  final  establishment  of  the  Portuguese  Court  at  the  Bra- 
zils— should  the  cause  of  Europe  be  lost,  or,  what  was  then  a  dis- 
tant, though  never  with  me  a  hopeless  prospect — its  restoration 
to  Europe  on  a  successful  termination  of  the  war,)  I  would  recom- 
mend to  my  Sovereign — should  I  be  then  in  office — a  compliance 
with  the  wishes  of  the  Court  of  Portugal. 

Long  after  1  quitted  office,  and  more  than  once,  or  twice,  or 
three  times,  I  was  appealed  to  for  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  that, 
such  a  promise  had  been  given;  not  that  any  engagement  of  mine 

w' 


246  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

could  be  binding  on  my  successors.  At  last,  I  believe  in  1811, 
without  waiting  for  these  long  coming  events,  the  Portuguese 
Minister  here  assumed  the  character  of  Ambassador.  The  recip- 
rocation was  declined.  Much  discussion,  it  seems,  followed  during 
the  three  succeeding  years  upon  the  refusal  to  name  an  Ambassa- 
dor at  the  Court  of  Brazil:  and  I  perfectly  remember,  that  in  one 
of  the  conversations  which  I  had  with  my  noble  friend  the  Sec- 
retary for  Foreign  Affairs,  he  reminded  me  of  the  circumstances 
which  I  have  here  recapitulated,  and  observed,  "  We  shall,  be- 
sides, thus  have  the  long  disputed  point  of  a  reciprocation  of  em- 
bassies settled,  and  your  pledge  to  the  Court  of  Portugal  redeem- 
ed in  your  own  person." 

If  it  is  supposed  by  honourable  gentlemen,  that  the  aggregate 
allowances  of  the  mission  were  necessarily  increased  by  giving 
the  name  and  rank  of  Ambassador,  instead  of  that  of  Envoy  Ex- 
traordinary, to  my  appointment,  I  assure  them  they  are  mistaken. 
The  question  of  expense  I  reserve  for  separate  consideration:  but 
as  it  here  mixes  itself  with  the  question  of  the  rank  of  the  mis- 
sion, I  am  compelled  shortly  to  advert  to  it,  a  little  before  its 
time.  There  are  (or  were  before  the  regulation  of  1S15,)  two 
different  scales  of  ambassadorial  allowances;  the  higher  scale  with 
a  salary  of  £11,000  a  year,  and  the  other,  on  what  is  called  the 
old  salary  of  £8,200.  The  difference  between  these  two  salaries 
is  nearly  the  same  as  the  difference  between  the  lower  of  them 
and  that  of  an  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary,— which  is  £5,200.  Now,  Sir,  a  man  who  coveted  an  em- 
bassy for  the  sake  of  emolument  would  hardly  fail,  once  Ambas- 
sador, to  choose  the  higher  scale  of  salary.  I  chose  the  lower. 
But  I  do  not  claim  any  merit  from  this  preference.  For  as  nei- 
ther £5,200,  (the  salary  of  Envoy  Extraordinary,)  nor  £S,200, 
(the  salary  of  Ambassador  on  the  old  scale,)  nor  even  the  higher 
salary  of  £11,000  reduced  by  deductions  at  home  and  abroad,  was 
expected  to  cover  all  the  expenses  of  the  mission,  without  an  ad- 
dition of  extraordinaries  (as  I  shall  presently  show)  it  became  in- 
different in  that  point  of  view,  what  should  be  the  nominal  rank 
of  the  mission. 

But  it  was  not  indifferent  in  other  respects.  I  flatter  myself, 
that  I  shall  not  be  suspected  of  the  idle  and  stupid  vanity  of  caring 
under  what  name  I  did  the  public  business.  I  believe,  however, 
that  it  will  be  generally  acknowledged,  that  having  once, — with 
however  little  pretensions  to  so  high  a  station — filled  that  office 
which  presides  over  the  diplomacy  of  the  country,  I  could  not 
consistently  assume  any  other  than  the  highest  diplomatic  rank — 
that  which  alone  represents  the  Sovereign — in  any  mission  on 
which  I  should  happen  to  be  employed.  Much  less  could  I 
have  done  so  with  propriety  on  a  mission  to  the  Court  of  Portu- 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  247 

gal,  with  which  I  had,  as  Secretary  of  State,  engaged  for  those 
exertions,  and  (sanguinely,  perhaps,  but,  as  it  has  turned  out,  safe- 
ly) anticipated  those  results,  by  which  that  Court  was  now  ena- 
bled, if  it  so  thought  fit,  to  accomplish  its  return  to  Europe. 

But  neither  was  the  question  of  what  might  be  individually  be- 
coming, the  whole  of  this  question.  The  character  of  Ambassa- 
dor, though  it  may  make  little  difference  here,  where  every  ne- 
gotiation passes  through  responsible  Ministers,  is  by  no  means  a 
matter  of  indifference  in  many  foreign  courts.  The  mere  ques- 
tion of  precedency,  trifling  as  it  may  seem  in  itself,  is  not  a  tiling 
of  no  moment,  in  diplomatic  transactions.  The  facility  of  access 
to  the  person  of  the  Sovereign  without  the  intervention  of  a  Min- 
ister, perhaps  hostile  to  our  interests — and  the  right  of  pre-audi- 
ence of  that  Sovereign  himself — are  advantages  of  no  inconsid- 
erable moment  in  courts  where  the  will  of  the  Sovereign  is  main- 
ly the  policy  of  the  State. 

But  what  good  did  I  expect  to  achieve  through  these  advan- 
tages ?  What  was  there  for  me  to  do  ?  What  did  I  expect  to  be 
able  to  do  ?  First,  it  was  not  for  me  to  judge  of  my  own  qualifica- 
tions; it  was  for  the  Government.  I  might  entrench  myself  be- 
hind this  answer.  But  in  the  spirit  in  which  I  am  stating  my  ar- 
gument, taking  the  defence  of  the  Government  upon  myself  (as 
my  noble  friend  has  taken  mine  upon  the  Government)  I  will  not. 
do  so.  I  must  again  remind  the  House,  that  I  speak  of  myself, 
only  because  I  am  upon  my  trial.  With  the  allowance  belonging 
to  that  consideration,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  I  think  that  there 
was  good  to  be  done;  and  I  think  that  /had  as  fair  means,  and  as 
probable  a  chance,  as  any  other  man,  of  doing  it. 

I  pass  by  many  obvious  difficulties  and  embarrassments  in  the 
present  state  of  the  relations  of  the  Court  of  Portugal  with  other 
Governments  in  Europe,  which  might  have  been  avoided  had  that 
Court  returned.  But  there  is  one  subject  which  seems  to  be  com- 
paratively forgotten  at  this  moment,  but  which  in  1814  (the  year 
of  my  appointment)  was  the  theme  of  loud  remonstrance  and  in- 
cessant reproach  against  the  Government — as  though  they  had 
been  indifferent  or  lukewarm  in  their  exertions  upon  it, — I  mean 
the  Slave  Trade.  I  did  hope  to  be  able  to  effect  something  on 
this  great  and  interesting  subject.  I  cannot  conceive  a  more  fa- 
vourable opportunity  for  this  purpose  than  would  have  been  af- 
forded by  the  return  of  the  Prince  Regent  to  the  kingdom  of  his 
ancestors:  a  kingdom  saved,  through  the  blessing  of  Providence 
upon  the  arms  and  counsels  of  this  country.  Of  those  counsels  I 
had,  from  my  official  situation,  been  the  humble  instrument  and 
organ:  nor  was  it  perhaps  altogether  an  unreasonable  presumption, 
to  hope  that  the  share  which  I  bad  accidentally  had  in  them  might 
have  conciliated,  even  to  so  humble  an  individual  as  myself,  some- 


248 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 


thing  of  kindness  from  the  Sovereign  whose  crown  and  whose 
dominions  had  been  thus  preserved  and  restored  to  him.  I  say, 
therefore,  Sir,  I  cannot  conceive  circumstances  which  would  have 
afforded  a  better  chance  of  making  some  impression  on  the  mind 
of  a  prince  naturally  good — naturally  religious — upon  a  matter  in 
which  his  personal  character  was  the  best,  perhaps  the  one,  hope 
of  success. 

I  can  assure  the  honourable  gentlemen,  that  of  the  instructions 
which  I  carried  out  with  me,  three-fourths  were  directed  to  this 
object.  And,  besides  the  instructions  of  my  noble  friend,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  I  had  with  me  ample  and  most  useful  sugges- 
tions from  an  honourable  friend  of  mine  (Mr.  Wilberforce,)  whom 
I  do  not  now  see  in  his  place,  which  should  not  have  lain  idle  in 
my  desk.  I  hoped  nothing,  indeed,  from  the  "  oratory"  which 
the  honourable  baronet  is  pleased  (I  suppose  ironically)  to  attribute 
to  me;  but  much  from  a  good  cause  in  zealous  hands.  I  did  be- 
lieve—-I  do  still  believe,  that  had  I  had  the  opportunity  of  per- 
sonal intercourse  with  the  Prince,  I  might  have  effected  some 
good  in  this  matter;  and  if  it  had  pleased  God  that  I  should  suc- 
ceed in  it,  I  should  neither  have  thought  the  expenses  of  my  mis- 
sion ill  employed,  nor  have  felt  any  disparagement  to  myself  in 
having  undertaken  it. 

So  much  for  the  objects  in  contemplation  at  the  commencement 
of  the  mission.  But  these  objects  were  not  attained. — True.  And 
it  is  supposed,  that  not  to  have  attained  them  was  to  me  matter  of 
great  disappointment.  In  one  sense,  undoubtedly  it  was  so.  I 
should  have  thought  the  settlement  of  the  question  of  the  Slave 
Trade  with  one  of  the  Peninsular  Powers,  an  object  of  import- 
ance not  easily  to  be  over-rated.  In  another  sense,  I  do  assure 
the  honourable  baronet  and  the  honourable  gentleman,  that  I  had 
not  experienced  one  half  of  the  satisfaction  in  accepting  my  office 
which  I  felt  when  I  was  permitted  to  resign  it. 

When,  after  writing  the  letter  of  April  the  10th,  tendering  my 
resignation,  I  yielded  to  the  request  of  my  noble  friend,  and  con- 
sented to  remain  at  my  post  so  long  as  my  services  might  be  thought 
necessary,  I  must  beg  the  House  to  observe  that  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  the  mission  had  assumed  an  entirely  new  form.  The  war 
had  broken  out;  and  if  there  had  not  then  been  a  Minister  of  high 
diplomatic  rank  at  Lisbon,  it  would  have  been  absolutely  necessary 
to  appoint  one.  I  failed,  it  is  true,  in  the  main  object  of  my  ne- 
gotiations during  the  war,— the  obtaining  the  aid  of  a  corps  of 
Portuguese  troops  to  act  with  the  Allies  in  Flanders.  But  why 
did  I  fail?  Precisely  because  that  state  of  things  existed  in  Por- 
tugal—because that  form  of  local  government  remained  there — 
which  it  was  the  interest  and  the  wish  of  this  country  to  see  al- 
tered.    I  failed  because  the  Sovereign  himself  was  not  at  Lisbon; 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  249 

an  additional  proof,  if  any  had  been  wanting,  of  the  advisabteness 
of  that  return  which  we  had  endeavoured  to  invite  by  every  prop- 
er inducement;  an  additional  proof  of  the  inconvenience  of  leav- 
ing one  of  the  kingdoms  of  Europe  with  which  Great  Britain  is 
most  intimately  allied,  under  a  delegated  Government;  a  Govern- 
ment incapable,  from  the  very  nature  of  their  trust,  and  from  the 
immensity  of  distance  which  separates  them  from  their  Sovereign, 
of  acting  in  all  cases  with  the  promptness  and  energy  necessary 
for  the  glory  of  the  absent  Sovereign,  and  for  the  welfare  of  his 
people. 

Sir,  I  venture  to  hope  that  the  House  will  feel  that  I  have  sat- 
isfactorily disposed  of  the  first  part  of  the  question  as  to  the  em- 
bassy, and  justified  the  nomination  of  a  mission  of  that  character, 
on  the  supposition  (which  I  had  before  justified)  of  the  Prince 
Regent  of  Portugal's  return.  I  now  proceed  to  the  second  part 
of  that  question,  the  expense  of  the  mission. 

If  there  was  no  delusion  in  the  cause  assigned  for  the  embassy 
— if  I  have  shown  that  it  was  necessary  or  highly  expedient  in 
the  case  supposed  to  exist — it  still  remains  to  be  inquired  whether 
or  not  it  was  conducted  on  too  costly  a  scale.  I  must  observe, 
however,  again,  that  if  the  belief  in  the  return  of  the  Prince  and 
the  expediency  of  an  embassy  to  welcome  him  are  not  made  out, 
one  farthing  of  expenditure  was  too  much;  and  if,  therefore,  in 
the  opinion  of  one  honest  and  impartial  man  who  has  heard  me, 
what  I  have  stated  appears  to  be  founded  in  fraud  or  artifice,  the 
question  of  pecuniary  expense  is  at  an  end.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  I  have  been  so  far  successful,  I  am  prepared  to  challenge  a  like 
decision  on  the  issue  now  to  be  joined;  and  to  demonstrate  that 
the  cost  of  this  mission  was  not  only  not  prodigal  in  proportion 
to  its  rank  and  character,  but  that  it  was  economical,  in  compari- 
son with  any  standard  with  which  it  can  in  fairness  be  compared. 

The  honourable  baronet  has  quoted  a  dictum  of  Sir  Robert 
Walpole's,  that  "  every  man  has  his  price."  I  do  not  think  this 
maxim  true  of  men: — I  do  not  think  it  true  that  even  every  thing 
has  its  price.  Things  must  be  estimated  not  merely  by  their  in- 
trinsic qualities,  but  by  their  relative  fitness  and  value.  There  is 
no  rule  for  judging  absolutely  what  ought  to  be  the  cost  of  an 
embassy.  There  is  no  forming  such  an  estimate  a  priori.  Facts 
and  experience  are  the  only  gounds  on  which  you  can  safely  or 
justly  proceed. 

I  beg  gentlemen  then  to  look  at  the  printed  accounts  of  mis- 
sions in  the  years  1812,  1813,  and  1814,  and  I  ask  who  could  tell, 
on  going  to  Lisbon  in  the  autumn  of  the  latter  year,  what  his  ex- 
penses were  likely  to  be?  Who  is  there,  that  having  before  him 
the  expenditure  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart  for  the  years  1812-13,  and 
1813-14,  would  have  ventured  upon  such  a  mission,  without  com- 
34 


250  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

ing  to  some  understanding  as  to  the  extent  of  his  expenditure,  and 
as  to  the  principles  of  its  limitation  ? 

I  shall  perhaps  surprise  the  honourable  baronet  when  I  confess 
that  an  application  on  the  subject  of  extraordinaries  was  made  by 
me  to  the  Government.  But  in  what  sense  was  this  application 
made?  Was  it  for  latitude  and  indulgence?  Was  it  that  I  might 
be  put  upon  the  same  footing  and  allowed  the  same  range  as  my 
predecessor?  No,  Sir;  it  was  for  strictness,  for  definition,  for 
restraint.  In  the  beginning  of  October  I  wrote  a  letter  to  my 
noble  friend,  Lord  Liverpool,  (my  noble  friend,  Lord  Castlereagh, 
near  me,  was  then  abroad,)  an  extract  of  which,  with  their  per- 
mission, I  will  now  read  to  the  House.  The  House  will  see  that 
it  was  of  as  private  and  familiar  a  style,  and  as  little  destined  for 
public  citation  as  that  from  Lord  Liverpool  to  me,  which  I  read 
to  the  House  a  short  time  ago. 

"  I  have  been  looking  over  Stuart's  extraordinaries,  and  they  really  frighten 
me.  It  may  be  very  well  for  him  or  any  man  not  connected  with  politics,  to 
draw  thus  at  discretion,  but  it  would  not  do  for  me.  For  God's  sake  limit  me 
to  what  you  think  right — I  can  form  no  judgment  of  the  matter:  only  limit 
me,  so  that  I  may  have  no  responsibility." 

This  letter  shows  at  least  the  quo  animo — the  disposition  with 
which  I  entered  upon  the  subject.  Is  this  the  language  of  rapa- 
city? Is  this  a  petition  for  large  emolument  and  unbounded  dis- 
cretion ?  Or  does  it  not  rather  indicate  a  cautious  dislike  of  dis- 
cretionary power,  arising  from  a  dread  of  responsibility,  and  an 
anticipation  of  injustice — the  former  of  which  I  am  not  ashamed 
of  confessing  I  did  feel;  the  latter,  I  have  at  this  moment,  God 
knows,  no  reason  to  disavow. 

Sir,  in  entering  upon  this  most  disagreeable  discussion — disa- 
greeable, because  I  must  mention  the  names  of  honourable  men 
in  a  way  which  may  be  liable  to  misconstruction — disagreeable, 
because  I  must  speak  (though  but  to  repel  them  with  scorn)  of 
imputations  with  which  I  never  thought  my  own  name  liable  to 
be  stained,  I  beg  leave  to  preface  what  I  have  to  say  by  observ- 
ing, that  the  name  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart,  or  of  any  other  person 
whom  I  may  have  occasion  to  mention  in  my  defence,  is  brought 
forward  by  me  most  reluctantly.  I  have  no  choice,  the  necessity 
is  forced  upon  me.  The  name  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart  I  mention 
with  the  respect  due  to  his  talents  and  character.  I  consider  him 
as  one  who  has  rendered  eminent  services  to  his  country,  and  from 
whom  his  country  may  confidently  look  for  such  services  hereafter. 
I  believe  him  to  be  as  free  from  pecuniary  taint,  as  I  know  my- 
self to  be.  Large  as  his  expenditure  at  Lisbon  may  appear,  I  am 
persuaded  that  it  was  at  once  justified  and  limited  by  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case.     It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  also,  that  of  the  ag- 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  251 

gregate  sums  which  appear  to  have  been  expended  by  him,  no 
small  proportion  was  simply  and  absolutely  loss  upon  the  ex- 
change, and  upon  the  conversion  of  English  into  Portuguese 
money.  After  these  declarations,  I  proceed  to  state  the  expendi- 
ture of  the  Lisbon  mission,  as  it  stood  in  Sir  Charles  Stuart's 
time,  and  the  amount  of  his  regular  and  extraordinary  allowance. 

For  the  year,  from  the  5th  of  April,  IS  12,  to  the  5th  of 
April,  1813,  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  extraordinaries  appear  to  have 
been        -         - -  £26,807 

Salary 5,200 

Total £32,007 


For  the  next  year,  from  the  5th  of  April,  1813,  to  the  5th  of 

April,  1814,  the  extraordinaries  are  stated  at       -         -     £26,006 

Salary 5,200 


Total £31,206 


This  was  the  conclusion  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  mission.  These 
statements  are  all  before  the  House.  They  are  to  be  found  in 
pages  30  and  31  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Civil 
List,  in  June,  1815; — which  Report  I  wish  that  the  honourable 
gentlemen  opposite  would  have  the  goodness  to  take  into  their 
hands,  as  I  shall  have  many  occasions  to  refer  to  it. 

Then  comes  a  period  which  is  particularly  selected  as  a  con- 
trast to  my  expenditure; — namely,  the  half  year,  beginning  the 
5th  of  April,  1814,  (the  termination  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  mis- 
sion,) and  ending  the  10th  of  October,  1814,  (the  commencement 
of  mine.)  Here  my  accusers  take  their  grand  position.  This  is 
the  narrow  isthmus  between  two  rushing  seas  of  expense,  on  which 
they  plant  their  standard  of  economy! — I  do  not  complain  of 
them  for  doing  so.  I  do  not  blame  the  honourable  gentleman 
who  brought  forward  this  question,  for  moving  for  papers  to  illus- 
trate this  position.  But  what  I  do  think  I  have  some  right  to 
complain  of  is,  that  having  obtained  these  documents,  they  have 
somehow  or  other  totally  forgotten  to  notice  their  results.  When 
it  suited  the  honourable  mover's  purpose,  he  asked  for  the  infor- 
mation; and  when  he  got  it,  and  found  that  it  was  not  precisely 
what  he  wanted,  it  suited  his  purpose  to  abstain  from  any  obser- 
vation upon  it.  Iu  this  respect,  he  will  excuse  me  if,  instead  of 
following  his  example,  I  endeavour  to  supply  his  omissions. 

At  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  departure  from  Lisbon,  Mr.  Casamajor, 
the  Secretary  of  Legation,  was  appointed  Charge  d'Affaires,  re- 
ceiving of  course  the  regular  salary  belonging  to  these  two  ap- 


252  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

pointments.  As  Mr.  Casamajor's  salary  during  this  half  year 
was  nearly  the  same  as  his  salary  of  Secretary  of  Embassy  with 
me,  and  made  but  a  trifling  part  of  the  expsnses  of  either  mission, 
I  shall  not  take  it  into  calculation.  Not  so,  however,  as  to  his  ex- 
traordinary allowances;  which  during  this  economical  half-year 
appear,  by  the  Civil  List  Report,  p.  32,  as  well  as  by  Mr.  Syden- 
ham's testimony,  to  have  amounted  to  upwards  of  £2,500. 

I  am  not  exactly  informed  at  what  period  between  April  and 
July  Mr.  Sydenham  was  named  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary  to  the  Local  Government  of  Portugal.  The 
first  official  despatch  to  him  that  I  have  seen  is  dated  in  July:  but 
his  nomination  must  have  preceded  that  despatch  by  some  weeks. 
He  had  from  the  5th  of  April  the  same  salary  as  had  been  enjoy- 
ed by  Sir  Charles  Stuart.  I  speak  here  of  the  regular  salary  of 
£5,200  a  year, — not  of  extraordinary  allowances.  Mr.  Syden- 
ham arrived  at  Lisbon  the  end  of  the  first  week  of  July.  He  re- 
mained there  until  the  27th  or  28th  of  that  month,  when  he  em- 
barked for  England,  being  obliged  to  quit  his  station  suddenly  on 
account  of  his  health.  These  three  weeks  (or  thereabouts)  were 
the  whole  of  Mr.  Sydenham's  residence  at  Lisbon;  and  for 
these  he  received  (I  am  not  blaming  him,  but  I  state  the  fact) 
two  quarters'   salary,  at  the  rate  of  £5,200  a  year — that  is  to 

say     -       - £2,600 

He  received  also,  for  outfit,  -  1,500 

He  received  for  his  journey  to  Lisbon  -         -       *-        1,100 

And  lastly  he  received  (at  a  subsequent  period)  for 
losses  occasioned  by  his  sudden  relinquishment  of 
the  mission        ---_____        2,000 


In  all    £7,200 
Add  to  this  sum,  Mr.  Casamajor's  extraordinaries  for 

the  same  period      --------        2,500 


The  result  of  cost  to  the  public,  for  the  half  year  in- 
tervening between  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  mission  and 
mine,  is  therefore  ......        £g  700 


This  was  the  reformed  period  which  is  to  put  all  past  and  fu- 
ture Ministers  to  shame!  This  was  the  rigid  scale  of  economy 
which  I  ought  to  have  taken  for  my  guide,  and  for  departing 
from  which  I  am  arraigned  before  this  House  and  the  country! 
Yet  hear  how  Mr.  Sydenham  describes  Mr.  Casamajor's  way  of 
life.  "  I  find,"  (says  Mr.  Sydenham,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Hamil- 
ton of  the  8th  of  July,  written  immediately  upon  his  arrival  at 
Lisbon.) 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  253 

"  I  find  that  Mr.  Casamajor  has  been  living  in  a  very  quiet  retired  way,  with 
no  suite  to  feed  and  lodge;  and  by  the  examination  of  his  books  I  perceive  that 
he  does  not  live  on  less  than  £100  a  week." 

Here  was  no  establishment,  no  representation,  no  call  for  dis- 
play of  any  kind;  yet  the  ordinary  expenses  of  Mr.  Casamajor's 
household  were  £100  a  week,  or  at  the  rate  of  £5,200  a  year! 

It  is  true,  at  least  I  have  heard  and  believe,  that  during  the 
three  weeks  that  Mr.  Sydenham  passed  at  Lisbon  he  lived  in  Mr. 
Casamajor's  house.  But,  as  to  the  charge  upon  the  public,  Mr. 
Sydenham  was  then  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  yearly  salary  of  £5,200, 
which  comes  to  exactly  another  £100  a  week.  So  that  indepen- 
dently of  the  extraordinary  allowances  of  Mr.  Sydenham,  for 
outfit,  journey,  and  losses,  the  aggregate  of  the  regular  salary  re- 
ceived by  him,  joined  to  the  extraordinaries  allowed  to  Mr.  Casa- 
major for  weekly  expenditure,  for  victus  and  convictus,  during 
the  economical  half  }^ear,  was  at  the  rate  of  upwards  of  £10,000 
a  year. 

There  is  not  upon  earth  a  more  honourable  mind  than  Mr. 
Casamajor's;  and  I  had  myself  the  opportunity  of  verifying  the 
statement  respecting  his  expenditure,  by  the  inspection  of  his 
books,  at  his  own  particular  desire.  But  I  must  take  the  liberty 
of  reminding  the  House,  that  from  the  moment  at  which  I  ar- 
rived at  Lisbon,  Mr.  Casamajor,  then  becoming  Secretary  of  Em- 
bassy, became  part  of  my  family,  and  as  such,  lived  at  my  table. 
From  that  time,  therefore,  his  expenses  (salary  excepted)  were 
involved  in  mine.  Why,  Sir,  if  I  were  to  calculate  by  simple  ad- 
dition, or  by  the  rule  of  three,  I  might  say,  that,  according  to 
what  I  have  shown  you,  on  Mr.  Sydenham's  testimony  as  well  as 
my  own — two  Casamajors  ought  to  have  eaten  up  my  whole  al- 
lowances, ordinary  and  extraordinary.  And,  by  the  way,  I  had 
two  Casamajors — for  in  addition  to  the  gentleman  of  whom  I 
have  been  speaking,  ancbof  whom  I  speak  with  every  feeling  of 
kindness  and  of  respect,  another  gentleman,  Mr.  Croft,  who  was 
recommended  to  me  by  my  noble  friend  as  Secretary  for  the  Por- 
tuguese Language,  (and  who  had  been  with  Sir  C.  Stuart  in  the 
same  capacity)  lived  with  me  as  one  of  my  family,  during  the 
whole  period  of  my  mission.  I,  of  course,  do  not  mean  seriously 
to  state  that  the  increase  of  my  expenses  was  in  exact  proportion 
to  the  number  of  persons  whom  I  had  to  maintain.  But  I  do 
mean  seriously  to  show  the  different  footing  upon  which  Mr.  Sy- 
denham and  Mr.  Casamajor  separately,  or  even  Mr.  Sydenham  and 
Mr.Casamajor  jointly — stood  in  respect  to  the  claims  upon  their 
expenditure,  from  that  in  which  I  stood, — with  all  the  accessary 
burdens,  and  all  the  unavoidable  representation  of  an  embassy. 
With  neither  of  the  two  gentlemen,  whom  I  had  the  good  fortune 
to  have  attached  to  me — Mr.  Casamajor  or  Mr.  Croft — had  I  any 

x 


254  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

personal  acquaintance  before  my  mission  began.  I  learnt,  during 
our  official  and  domestic  intercourse,  to  value  and  esteem  them 
both.  I  am  sorry  to  be  forced  to  mention  their  names  in  con- 
nexion with  these  miserable  details;  but  I  am  driven  to  it  by  the 
unsparing  coarseness  of  the  attacks  which  have  been  made  upon 
me,  and  by  the  foolish,  fallacious,  and  dishonest  contrast  of  my 
expenditure  with  that  of  Mr.  Sydenham: — Mr.  Sydenham's,  who, 
during  his  three  weeks'  residence  at  Lisbon,  was  an  inmate  in  the 
house  of  Mr.  Casamajor, — and  mine,  who,  during  the  whole  pe- 
riod of  my  mission  had  the  suite  of  an  embassy  to  maintain! 

And  now,  Sir,  come  we  to  the  famous  letter  of  letters,  upon 
which  it  seems  that  the  whole  of  the  case  against  me  is  made  to  turn 
— the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Sydenham,  directing 
him  to  confine  his  expenditure  within  his  regular  allowances.  Be- 
fore this  letter  is  made  conclusive  against  me,  I  might  perhaps 
contend  that  it  should  be  shown  that  I  was  in  some  degree,  if  not 
party  to  it,  cognizant  of  it.  Upon  my  honour,  I  never  saw  it  till 
after  the  honourable  gentleman's  first  notice  of  his  motion.  I  can- 
not say  that  I  had  never  heard  of  it.  I  had  heard,  or  perhaps  seen 
in  a  newspaper,  that  some  such  letter  had  been  written  to  Mr.  Sy- 
denham by  my  noble  friend:  and  I  well  remember  that  the  same 
authority  stated  the  rate  of  £5,000  a  year  as  that  which  covered 
all  Mr.  Sydenham's  allowances.  I  have  already  shown  the  ac- 
curacy of  that  statement. 

But  I  waive  this  plea:  I  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  let- 
ter; and,  if  the  circumstances  of  Mr.  Sydenham's  situation  and 
mine  were  the  same;  and  if  the  meaning  of  this  letter  was  what 
has  been  attributed  to  it;  and  z/ that  meaning  was  enforced  against 
Mr.  Sydenham,  or  was  not  remonstrated  against  by  him;  I  will 
admit  that,  notwithstanding  my  ignorance  of  the  law,  I  was  bound 
by  it,  and  am  guilty  of  not  conforming  to  it. 

And,  first,  what  was  Mr.  Sydenham's  situation  ?  That  of  Envoy 
to  the  Local  Government;  mine,  that  of  Ambassador  to  the  Sover- 
eign. (With  the  propriety  of  the  appointment  we  have  in  this 
part  of  the  argument  nothing  to  do.)  Secondly,  what  was  the 
meaning  of  the  letter?  My  noble  friend,  the  writer  of  it,  has  told 
you,  that  it  did  not  mean  the  absolute  exclusion  of  extraordina- 
ries,  which  he  held  to  be  almost  impossible;  but  it  did  mean  to 
prescribe  the  discontinuance  of  that  rate  of  expenditure  which  had 
brought,  during  the  war,  such  heavy  charge  upon  the  public.  The 
letter  itself  says, 

"  I  cannot  anticipate  any  public  grounds  for  continuing1  the  expenditure  of 
His  Majesty's  servants  at  Lisbon,  on  the  scale  on  which  it  has  been  conducted 
during  the  continuance  of  the  War  in  the  Peninsula." 

To  be  sure  he  could  not.     Who  dreamt  of  an  expenditure  of 
upwards  £30,000  a  year  in  time  of  peace?    Lastly,  the  instruc- 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  255 

tions  which  were  given,  were  they  executed  ?  Did  Mr.  Syden- 
ham think  it  practicable  to  conform  to  them  ?  Did  he  receive  them 
without  a  remonstrance,  and  act  up  to  them  with  strictness  and 
fidelity?  With  fidelity,  in  the  moral  sense  of  the  word,  I  have  no 
doubt  he  would  have  acted  up  to  them  if  he  had  remained  at  Lis- 
bon; but  have  we  no  positive  proof  that  he  regarded  the  literal 
execution  of  them  as  impossible? 

And  here,  Sir,  again  I  feel  myself  called  upon  to  guard  against 
being  supposed  to  mean  any  thing  unkind  in  the  reference  which 
I  am  compelled  to  make  to  Mr.  Sydenham.  That  gentleman  is 
no  more!  He  has  closed  a  distinguished  and  honourable  life,  during 
which  he  endeared  himself  to  his  friends,  and  has  left  behind 
him  an  unspotted  character.  I  implore  of  those  who  hear  me, 
that  if  a  word  should  escape  me  in  the  heat  of  argument,  which 
can  be  thought  to  bear  any  colour  of  disrespect  to  Mr.  Syden- 
ham's memory,  they  will  believe  it  to  be  wholly  unintentional, 
I  am  the  last  man  living  who  would  wantonly  throw  a  slur  upon 
his  reputation,  or  give  a  wound  to  the  feelings  of  those  who  mourn 
his  loss.  I  would  most  gladly  have  avoided  any  allusion  to  him: 
but  his  name  has  been  made  the  vehicle  for  a  foul  calumny  against 
my  character;  and  the  House  will  feel  that  not  to  me  who  repel 
an  attack,  but  to  those  who  have  misused  Mr.  Sydenham's  name 
for  the  purposes  of  attack  upon  me,  is  to  be  imputed  the  guilt  of 
profaning  (if  it  be  profaned)  the  sanctity  of  the  tomb. 

The  fact  is,  that  while  the  mandate  to  Mr.  Sydenham,  directing 
him  to  confine  his  expenses  within  certain  limits,  was  traversing 
the  ocean  in  one  direction,  a  remonstrance,  by  anticipation,  against 
such  a  limitation  was  on  its  passage  to  the  Foreign  Office.  Mr. 
Sydenham,  I  suppose,  might  have  heard  rumours  of  such  intended 
restriction;  he  knew,  from  what  he  saw  of  Lisbon  himself  (in  the 
amount  of  Mr.  Casamajor's  weekly  bills,)  and  from  what  he  had 
heard  of  it  from  others,  that  a  literal  compliance  with  that  restric- 
tion was  impracticable;  and,  on  the  8th  of  July,  the  very  day  (I  be- 
lieve) after  his  arrival  at  Lisbon,  he  thus  addressed  himself  to  Mr. 
Hamilton,  the  Under  Secretary  of  State  (for  the  information  of 
my  noble  friend,)  in  the  letter  from  which  I  have  already  quoted 
an  extract: — 

"  While  the  Duke  of  Wellington  was  at  Madrid,  he  spoke  to  me  on  the  sub- 
ject of  my  allowances  at  Lisbon,  and  he  gave  me  the  comfortable  assurance  of 
my  being  ruined,  unless  Government  allowed  me  something  more  than  the  usu- 
al salary,  diminished  by  the  usual  deductions  in  England,  and  the  loss  of  ex- 
change. He  promised  to  mention  the  subject  to  Lord  Castlereagh;  and  I  have 
written  to  him  to  remind  him  of  his  promise.  I  find  that  Mr.  Casamajor  has 
been  living  in  a  very  quiet,  retired  way,  with  no  suite  to  feed  and  lodge,  and  by 
the  examination  of  his  books,  I  perceive  that  he  does  not  live  on  less  than  JCIOO 
a  week. 

So  far  is  printed.     Further  on,  in  the  same  letter,  the  extract 


256  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

of  which  now  lies  before  me,  he  states  that  he  "shall  live  with 
the  greatest  possible  economy;  but  that  what  he  cannot  pay  out 
of  his  allowances  he  shall  trust  to  the  Government  to  pav  for 
him." 

Mr.  Sydenham,  as  I  have  before  observed,  resided  about  three 
weeks  in  Lisbon,  namely,  from  about  the  7th  or  8th  to  the  27th 
or  2Sth  of  July.  I  have  already  stated  the  allowances,  regular 
and  extraordinary,  which  he  received  during  that  period  or  on 
account  of  it — viz.  £2,600  salary;  £1,500  outfit;  £1,100  for  the 
journey  from  Paris  and  Madrid  to  Lisbon.  All  these  sums  are 
in  the  printed  accounts  of  the  Civil  List  Report;  and  therefore 
gentlemen  might  have  known  them  without  moving  for  papers: 
but  I  was  not  aware,  and  I  suppose  they  were  not  aware,  till  in 
an  evil  hour  they  brought  it  out  by  their  own  motion  for  papers, 
— of  the  sum  of  £2,000  for  losses,  which  makes  up  the  aggregate 
of  Mr.  Sydenham's  receipts  on  account  of  his  half  year's  mission, 
to  £7,200. 

If  it  is  said,  that  as  the  sum  of  £7,200  includes  outfit,  and  al- 
lowances for  journey  and  for  losses,  it  is  not  fairly  to  be  stated  as 
Mr.  Sydenham's  expenditure  for  half  a  year,  I  readily  admit 
that  it  is  not  so:  but  then  I  must  observe,  that,  on  the  same 
ground  the  aggregate  of  my  allowances  cannot  be  fairly  stated  as 
the  expenditure  of  a  year.  The  cost  of  outfit  and  plate  in  my 
case  would  not  have  been  repeated  another  year,  any  more  than 
that  of  outfit,  and  allowances  for  journey  and  for  losses  would,  in 
Mr.  Sydenham's  case,  have  been  repeated  in  another  half  year. 
But  it  is  quite  fair — it  is  indeed  absolutely  necessary,  since  the 
contrast  between  Mr.  Sydenham's  half  year  and  my  year,  has 
been  so  much  insisted  on — to  state,  as  I  have  done,  Mr.  Syden- 
ham's salary,  joined  to  Mr.  Casamajor's  extraordinaries,  for 
the  same  half  year,  as  constituting  the  expenditure  of  the  mis- 
sion for  that  period.  And  it  is  fair  to  state  the  whole  of  Mr. 
Sydenham's  receipts  joined  to  Mr.  Casamajor's  extraordinaries, 
as  the  aggregate  expense  of  that  half  year  with  which  the  aggre- 
gate of  my  receipts  for  a  whole  year  is  to  be  compared. 

Whatever  comments,  therefore,  gentlemen  may  think  proper 
to  make  on  my  conduct  in  other  respects,  they  will  at  least,  I 
think,  abandon  the  contrast  between  Mr.  Sydenham's  mission 
and  mine,  as  to  the  rate  of  their  respective  cost  to  the  public. 
This  point,  on  which  they  relied  so  confidently,  completely  fails 
them.  They  may,  if  they  will,  continue  to  arraign  my  political 
sins;  but  if  comparison  with  the  period  of  Mr.  Sydenham's  mis- 
sion be  a  decisive  test  of  economy,  they  must  on  that  comparison 
absolve  me  from  pecuniary  transgression. 

But,  Sir,  it  is  not  on  pecuniary  matters  only  that  they  have 
guessed   wrong  as  to  me  and  Mr.  Sydenham.     They  flattered 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  257 

themselves  that  they  had  another  case  against  me  on  his  account; 
a  case  of  hardship — as  if  this  valuable  public  servant  had  been 
displaced  purposely  to  make  way  for  me.  It  has  been  asserted 
that  I  superseded  Mr.  Sydenham.  Sir,  I  did  not  supersede  Mr. 
Sydenham.  If  the  fact  were  so,  I  know  not  that  it  would  consti- 
tute any  charge  against  me.  It  would,  I  believe,  be  the  first  time 
that  the  undoubted  right  of  the  Crown  to  appoint  and  to  change 
its  foreign  Ministers  has  been  made  matter  of  charge,  or  even  of 
question,  in  Parliament.  But  the  fact  is  not  so.  Mr.  Sydenham's 
mission  was  irretrievably  at  an  end  before  mine  began.  He  quitted 
Lisbon  not  only  unrecalled,  but  without  leave.  He  did  this  from 
necessity,  on  account  of  the  impaired  state  of  his  health.  He  ar- 
rived in  England  (as  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  say)  on  or 
about  the  Sth  of  August.  From  that  day  to  the  10th  of  October 
he  received  in  England  his  appointments  as  Minister  at  Lisbon. 
Are  the  economists  angry  that  he  did  not  continue  so  to  receive 
them  longer?  He  was  neither  then,  nor  at  any  subsequent  period 
before  his  death  (as  I  shall  presently  show,  by  a  document  found- 
ed on  his  own  representations)  in  a  state  of  health  to  admit  of  his 
resuming  the  Lisbon  mission — or  accepting  any  other.  If  he  had 
happily  been  so,  my  noble  friend  will  bear  testimony  not  only  to 
the  fact,  but  to  my  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  another  and  more 
important  employment  was  in  contemplation  for  him.  So  much 
for  that  charge. 

I  have  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  the  letter  from  the  Foreign  Office 
to  the  Treasury,  which  authorized  the  payment  to  Mr.  Sydenham 
of  that  sum  of  £2,000  for  losses,  which  forms  the  last  item  in  his 
account.  I  almost  wonder,  by  the  bye,  that  I  have  not  been  told, 
in  distinct  terms,  that  this  £2,000  was  given  to  Mr.  Sydenham  to 
reconcile  him  to  my  supersession  of  him.  The  House,  if  they 
will  allow  me  to  take  the  liberty  of  reading  this  letter  to  them, 
will  see  how  that  matter  stands.  I  am  ready  to  move  for  its  be- 
ing laid  on  the  table,  if  they  think  it  necessary.  It  is  luckily  the 
last  document  of  the  kind  with  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  try 
their  patience.     It  is  as  follows: 

"  Foreign  Office,  Oct.  25th,  1815. 
"  My  Lords, 
"  Thomas  Sydenham,  Esq.  late  His  Majesty's  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary  to  the  Court  of  Lisbon,  has  represented  to  me  the  very 
great  expense  he  was  at  in  making  preparations  to  undertake  that  mission, 
with  a  view  to  a  permanent  residence  at  Lisbon,  and  the  great  loss  he  sustain- 
ed by  the  sudden  disposal  of  his  effects,  &c.  on  his  being  obliged  to  relinquish 
that  mission,  on  account  of  the  dangerous  state  of  his  health,  after  a  residence 
of  only  a  few  months,  whereby  he  has  been  a  looser  of  considerably  more  than 
.£2,000  and  is  thereby  involved  in  difficulties  beyond  the  reach  of  his  private 
fortune  to  satisfy." 

35  x* 


258  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

(There  is  a  slight  error  of  inadvertency  here  as  to  the  period 
of  Mr.  Sydenham's  actual  residence  at  Lisbon — which  was,  as  I 
have  shown,  weeks  only  and  not  months.  I  now  come  to  a  pas- 
sage to  which  I  particularly  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
House.) — 

"Having  considered  this  application,  it  has  appeared  to  me,  under  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  the  case  (Mr.  Sydenham's  state  of  health  still  prevent- 
ing his  being  employed  in  the  diplomatic  service  of  His  Majesty,}  to  be  just 
and  reasonable  that  Mr.  Sydenham  should  receive  a  compensation  on  account 
of  these  losses. — I  am,  therefore,  to  desire  your  lordships  will  be  pleased  to 
take  the  commands  of  His  Royal  Highness  the  Prince  Regent,  with  regard  to 
the  issue  of  the  sum  of  two  thousand  pounds,  nett,  to  Mr.  Sydenham,  or  his 
assigns,  as  a  compensation  for  the  losses  above  stated." 

Is  this  also  a  sham  letter  and  a  concerted  fraud  ?    Perhaps  the 
date  will  help  us  to  a  solution  of  this  question.     It  is  dated  the 
25th  October,  1S15, — that  is  to  say,  six  months  after  I  had  ten- 
dered the  resignation  of  my  mission,  and  three  months  after  my 
resignation  had  been  accepted — a  period,  therefore,  when,  if  Mr. 
Sydenham's  health  had  been  sufficiently  restored  to  enable  him 
to  resume  his  station  at  Lisbon,  there  had  been  for  three  months 
no  impediment  whatever,  and  for  six  months  no  impediment  on 
my  part,  to  his  resuming  it.     It  was  manifestly  the  hopelessness 
of  his  return  to  public  life  that  weighed  with  the  Foreign  Office 
in  writing  this  letter,  to  which  I  am  happy  to  have  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  referring,  both  for  the  proof  which  it  affords  of  good- 
natured  and  considerate  disposition,  and  the  just  testimony  which 
it  bears  to  the  merits  and  character  of  Mr.  Sydenham.     I  had  not 
the  honour  and  the  happiness  of  a  personal  acquaintance  with 
Mr.  Sydenham.     I  knew  him  only  by  reputation;  by  the  report 
of  common  friends,  whose  report  would  of  itself  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  ensure  my  belief  of  his  good  qualities, — and  by  the  exhi- 
bition of  his  talents  in  that  memorable  investigation  which  was 
carried  on  in  a  Committee  of  this  House  upon  the  renewal  of  the 
East  India  Company's  Charter.     In  the  course  of  that  examina- 
tion the  gentlemen  connected  with  India  displayed  a  degree  of 
ability   and    information,   which    perhaps   could    not    have   been 
matched,  certainly  not  excelled,  in  any  other  service,  or  in  any 
other  country.  Among  these  very  able  men  Mr.  Sydenham  stood 
eminently  distinguished, — evincing  a  capacity  for  great  affairs  and 
a  fitness  for  important  employments,  such  as  are  rarely  to  be  found 
even   in   more  practised  statesmen.     If,   therefore,   I  have  been 
driven  to  say  any  thing  of  this  gentleman  (I  hope  I  have  not,  I 
am  sure  I  have  not  intended  it)  which  may  have  appeared  in  any 
degree  disrespectful  or  disparaging, — if  I  have  been  obliged  to 
soil  the  name  of  a  high-minded  and  liberal  man  with  money, — 
the  blame  (I  repeat  it)  is  not  with  me, — but  with  those  who  forced 
Mr.  Sydenham's  name  into  this  discussion. 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  259 

I  now,  Sir,  come  to  the  details  of  the  expenditure  of  my  own 
mission,  the  account  of  which  is  among  the  papers  upon  the  table. 
The  honourable  gentleman  who  made  the  motion,  has  had  the 
goodness  to  compliment  me  on  the  minuteness  and  accuracy  of 
my  calculations.  I  understand  the  nature  of  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman's compliment;  and  I  see  that  he  has  been  taught  thorough- 
ly to  understand  the  nature  of  the  advantage  which  he  has  over 
me  on  this  day.  Undoubtedly  any  charge  connected  with  money 
places  the  accused  in  a  dilemma  of  painful  difficulty, — a  difficulty 
the  more  painful  in  proportion  to  the  consciousness  of  his  inno- 
cence, and  to  the  warmth  of  his  indignation.  If  he  contents  him- 
self— as  is  the  first  natural  impulse  of  every  honourable  mind — 
with  general  and  lofty  denial,  he  exposes  himself  to  be  triumphed 
over  as  having  evaded  investigation;  and  figures  are  then  invoked 
as  the  only  test  of  truth.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  condescends 
to  detailed  arithmetical  calculation,  he  becomes  liable  to  such  com- 
pliments as  those  of  the  honourable  gentleman;  and  must  feel  (as 
I  do  now)  a  certain  inevitable  degradation  in  the  very  process  by 
which  he  is  to  be  justified.  It  is  certainly  not  without  such  pain 
that  I  made  up  my  mind  to  this  latter  alternative.  Those  who 
know  me  in  private  life  are,  I  am  afraid,  too  well  aware  how  little 
I  am  versed  in  questions  either  of  arithmetic  or  of  economy,  not 
to  have  been  as  much  surprised,  as  the  honourable  gentleman  pro- 
fesses himself  to  be  gratified,  at  the  proficiency  in  figures  which  is 
displayed  in  the  papers  before  the  House;  particularly  in  that  la- 
boured despatch  of  mine  of  the  30th  May,  1815.  In  truth,  I  avail- 
ed myself,  for  the  purpose  of  those  statements  and  calculations,  of 
the  aid  of  persons  much  more  conversant  with  such  matters  than 
I  can  pretend  to  be.  I  beg  the  honourable  gentleman  also  to  un- 
derstand that  I  do  not  profess,  in  these  accounts,  to  state  my 
whole  expenditure  at  Lisbon,  but  only  my  expenditure  of  public 
money. 

Sir,  the  expenditure  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  mission  for  the  two 
years,  1812-13,  and  1813-14,  and  that  of  the  interval  between 
the  conclusion  of  Sir  Charles  Stuart's  mission  and  my  appoint- 
ment, can  hardly  be  denied  to  justify  the  nominal  amount  of  the 
allowances  assigned  to  me.  But  that  nominal  amount  and  the 
real  effective  value  were  very  different  indeed.  For  my  actual 
expenditure  (as  distinguished  from  nominal  receipt,  or  rather 
nominal  issue,)  a  fair  but  strict  standard  of  comparison  is  furnish- 
ed by  the  Report  of  the  Civil  List  Committee  of  June,  1815.  If 
it  shall  appear  that  my  whole  actual  expenditure  as  Embassador, 
tallied  within  a  very  trifle  with  the  amount  fixed  by  that  Com- 
mittee and  sanctioned  by  the  House  for  a  Minister  at  Lisbon  of 
the  second  order,  I  think  it  will  not  be  imputed  that  I  abused  the 
discretion  confided  to  me. 


260  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

Assuredly  I  did  not,  on  going  out  to  Lisbon,  anticipate  the  trial 
of  this  day;  but  I  did,  as  has  been  seen,  dread  and  deprecate  any 
unlimited  pecuniary  discretion.  It  has  been  shown  how  anxious 
I  was  to  have  the  limits  of  my  expenditure  defined:  and  within 
those  limits,  whatever  they  might  be,  I  resolved  to  restrict  my- 
self. 

My  nominal  allowances  were,  as  I  have  said,  and  as  appears 
from  the  papers  upon  the  table — 

Salary £S,200 

Extraordinaries,  not  to  exceed      -  6,000 


Total  £14,200 


Of  this  amount  of  extraordinaries  I  drew  only  for  three-fourths, 
or  £4,500.  I  received  (like  every  other  Minister  of  whatever 
rank,)  the  sum  of  £1,500  for  outfit.  If  that  sum  be  taken  as  re- 
placing the  £1,500  extraordinaries  which  I  declined  to  draw,  the 
result  of  salary,  extraordinaries,  and  outfit  for  that  one  year  {out- 
Jit  could  only  be  a  charge  on  the  first  year,)  is,  as  above,  £14,- 
200.  I  had  plate,  like  other  Ambassadors  and  Envoys  Extraor- 
dinary, &c,  but  upon  the  scale  of  an  Envoy. 

Having  no  rule  or  experience  to  guide  me,  all  that  I  could  de- 
termine was  to  consider  the  established  recognized  amount  of  the 
salary  as  the  limit  of  my  public  expenditure,  and  to  draw  for  no 
more  extraordinaries  than  should  make  up  the  nominal  salary 
of  £8,200  to  that  effective  amount.     Had,  therefore,  that  salary 
been  paid  free  from  deductions  at  home,  and  without  loss  on  the 
exchange  and  on  the  conversion  into  Portuguese  money,  I  should 
not  have  drawn  for  one  shilling  of  extraordinaries  for  my  ex- 
penses at  Lisbon.     But  the  case  was  very  different.     This  nomi- 
nal salary  was  liable  to   deductions  amounting  to  no  less  than 
about  sixteen  per  cent,  in  England,  which  reduced  it  from  £8,200 
to  about  £6,900;  and  this  latter  sum  again  to  a  loss  of  something 
more  than  twelve  per  cent,  in  its  transit  and  conversion,  reducing 
it  from  £6,900  to  somewhere  between  £6,100  and  £6,000. 

This  statement  applies  to  the  first  three  quarters  of  the  year, 
ending  the  5th  of  July,  1815.  In  July  I  received  the  Report  of 
the  Civil  List  Committee,  to  which  I  have  so  often  had  occasion 
to  refer.  From  that  time,  therefore,  I  had — what  I  had  always 
wished — a  positive  written  public  rule,  not  laid  down  indeed  for 
my  mission,  but  which  I  might  safely  take  for  my  guide.  By  the 
Civil  List  Report,  the  Minister  to  Portugal  was  considered  pros- 
pectively on  the  footing  not  of  an  Ambassabor,  but  of  an  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary.  To  that  Minister 
of  the  second  order,  the  Report  assigned  a  salary  of  £8,000  a 
year.     It  further  recommended  that  all  sums  for  foreign  missions 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  261 

should  be  paid  free  of  all  deductions  except  the  property  tax;  thus 
relieving  the  issues  of  salary  from  all  the  established  legal  defal- 
cations at  home,  amounting  to  about  six  per  cent,  (in  addition  to 
the  property  tax,)  and  from  all  losses  by  exchange  or  otherwise, 
in  the  transmission  abroad.  At  the  same  time,  the  allowance  for 
outfit — which  had  been  hitherto  in  all  cases,  and  for  all  ranks, 
only  £1,500 — a  sum  which  is  stated  by  the  Report  not  to  be  suf- 
ficient to  cover  above  one-third  or  one-fourth  of  the  real  expense, 
was  raised  to  £4,000,  and  an  annual  allowance  of  £500  was  given 
for  house  rent.  The  several  arrangements  are  to  be  found  in  pp. 
47  and  48  of  the  Civil  List  Report,  to  which  I  beg  the  gentlemen 
who  do  me  the  honour  to  watch  what  I  am  saying,  to  refer.  De- 
ducting £S00  the  property  tax,  from  the  salary  of  £8,000,  these 
issues  to  the  new  Envoy  would  amount  to  £11,700  nett  for  the 
first  year;  and  to  £7,700  nett  for  every  subsequent  year.  And 
this  exclusive  of  plate,  for  which  the  Report  makes  a  special  pro- 
vision. 

When  I  received  the  copy  of  this  Report,  I  instantly  determined 
that,  so  long  as  the  mission  continued  in  my  hands,  I  would  limit 
myself  strictly  to  the  amount  specified  in  it.  For  the  last  quar- 
ter, therefore  (from  July  the  5th  to  October  10th,  1815,)  I  con- 
formed to  the  new  scale  of  ordinary  allowances,  and  received  only 
£1,800  nett,  without  any  extraordinaries  whatever.  The  exchange 
was  now,  in  consequence  of  the  termination  of  the  war,  become 
so  favourable  as  in  a  great  measure  to  counteract  the  loss  upon  the 
paper  money,  which  continued  to  be  about  seven  per  cent.  The 
result  of  this  counteraction  was,  that  the  loss  upon  £1,800  by 
the  exchange  and  paper  money  jointly,  which  three  months  be- 
fore would  have  been  about  £220,  was  now  only  about  £70. 

Of  the  £6,000  extraordinaries  which  I  had  liberty  to  draw,  I 
drew  only  for  so  much  as  was  sufficient — 

First,  to  replace  the  deductions  on  £6,150,  being  three  quarters 
of  nominal  salary  at  the  old  rate  of  £8,200  {gross,)  and  on 
£1,800  one  quarter  at  the  new  rate  of  £7,200  (nett.) 

Secondly,  to  make  up  the  old  allowance  for  outfit,  viz.  £1,500 
to  the  sum  of  £4,000  specifically  allowed  by  the  Committee,  and 
not  one  farthing  more,  so  help  me  God. 

So  scrupulously  did  I  adhere  to  these  limits,  (which  seemed  to 
me  to  have  been  formed  on  a  clear  principle,  and  which  had  the 
sanction  of  the  House  of  Commons,)  that  finding  that  my  agent 
had  drawn  for  the  last  quarter  a  sum  of  £1,500  as  extraordina- 
ries (at  the  rate  of  £5,000  originally  allowed  to  me,)  I  directed 
him  to  return  that  sum  to  the  Treasury:  and  I  declare,  on  my  con- 
science, that  when  I  gave  this  direction,  I  had  no  more  expecta- 
tion that  the  transaction  would  ever  be  known  to  any  one  except 
to  my  agent,  to  my  right  honourable  friend  near  me,  Mr.  Iluskis- 


262  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

son,  who  n  I  requested  to  see  my  direction  executed,  to  my  noble 
friend,  Lord  Castlereagh,  (whose  permission  was  necessary;)  and 
to  the  Treasury,  (to  which  the  return  was  made,)  I  had  no  more 
expectation  that  I  should  ever  have  to  state  this  transaction  pri- 
vately or  publicly  in  vindication  of  my  character,  than  I  had  ap- 
prehension that  on  such  grounds  my  character  would  ever  be  as- 
sailed. 

It  is  undoubtedly  still  open  to  the  honourable  gentlemen  who 
are  the  framers  and  supporters  of  the  impeachment  against  me, 
to  recur  to  the  charge  that  the  mission  to  Lisbon  was  unneces- 
sary; to  find  fault,  if  they  please,  with  my  personal  conduct  in 
accepting  it  (of  which  a  word  by-and-by,)  and  to  censure  the 
mode  in  which  I  may  have  discharged  the  duties  of  it.  But  as 
to  pecuniary  imputation,  I  stand  upon  a  rock — I  stand  upon  the 
authority  of  a  Committee  of  this  House,  appointed  long  after  my 
embassy  was  established  and  endowed,  and  not  merely  approving 
by  retrospect  the  amount  of  its  actual  endowment,  but  recom- 
mending prospectively  the  same  endowment  for  a  mission  of  a 
lower  character.  Before  that  Report  was  known  to  me,  with  the 
power  to  go  to  a  certain  extent  of  expense,  I  restrained  myself 
within  that  extent,  to  limits  narrowed  by  my  own  sense  of  what 
was  right.  As  soon  as  I  had  the  authority  of  that  Report  to  guide 
me,  I  adhered  to  it  voluntarily  and  strictly,  living  as  an  Ambassa- 
dor, within  the  allowances  assigned  for  an  Envoy.  To  other  alle- 
gations of  misconduct,  political  or  prudential,  I  may  be  obnox- 
ious; but  surely  no  fair  adversary,  after  this  exposition,  will  im- 
pute to  my  embassy  either  a  wasteful  prodigality  on  the  part  of 
the  Government,  or  a  corrupt  rapacity  on  mine. 

I  am  afraid  I  have  already  wearied  the  House  with  figures,  but 
there  is  another  calculation,  of  which  the  result  is  so  striking,  that 
I  cannot  help  requesting  of  the  House  to  allow  me  to  state  it  to 
them.  Its  elements  are  few,  and  the  process  short  and  simple. 
I  particularly  request  attention  to  it  from  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  (Mr.  Tierney,)  who  sits  opposite  to  me,  whose  skill  in 
these  matters  peculiarly  qualifies  him  to  detect  any  error  in  the 
statement. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Civil  List  fixes  the  salary 
of  the  Lisbon  Envoy  at  £8,000,  to  be  reduced  by  the  deduction 
of  the  property  tax  to  £7,200.  This  sum  of  £7,200  was  to  be 
received  nett  at  Lisbon,  free  from  all  other  deductions  at  home, 
and  from  loss  by  exchange  and  conversion  abroad.  Sir,  I  desired 
a  person  far  better  skilled  in  calculations  than  I  am,  to  make  out 
for  me  how  much  must  have  been  received  nett  from  the  Treas- 
ury here,  to  produce  £7,200  nett,  in  Lisbon,  during  the  years 
1814-15?    The  following  is  the  statement  of  my  arithmetician. 

The  first  addition  to  be  made  is  that  of  the  amount  necessary 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  263 

to  cover  the  average  loss  of  something  more  than  12  per  cent,  by- 
exchange  and  paper  money:  this  would  be  about  -  £  980 
which  being  added  to      -----         -  7,200 

Gives  £8,180 

as  the  sum  necessary  to  have  been  received  nett  in  England,  in 
order  to  produce  £7,200  nett  in  Lisbon. 

But,  again;  how  much  would  it  have  been  necessary  for  the 
Treasury  to  issue  gross  to  produce  (on  the  footing  on  which  my 
salary  was  issued)  £8,180  nett  in  England?  The  deductions  at 
the  Exchequer,  I  have  shown,  amounted  to  about  16  per  cent, 
the  property-tax  included.  The  sum  necessary  to  cover  these  de- 
ductions, would  be  about  -  £1,556 
Which,  added  to              8, ISO 


Shows,  that  the  gross  issue  at  the  Treasury  must  have 

been  about  - -         £9,736 

Add  to  this  sum  the  allowance  for  outfit  -         -  4,000 
Add  the  allowance  for  house-rent  (to  which,  by  the 
way,  might  be  added  12  per  cent,  for  loss  on  ex- 
change, &c.) -         -  500 

And  the  gross  nominal  issues  at  the  Treasury  to 
meet  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee,  for 
the  first  year  of  the  new  Envoy,  must  have  been  £14,236 

Does  not  the  very  sound  of  this  sum  carry  conviction, — and  I 
could  almost  hope  compunction,  to  the  bosoms  of  my  accusers? 
Does  it  not  excite  in  the  minds  of  all  impartial  men,  an  indignant 
recollection  of  the  arts  and  the  clamours,  by  which,  during  two 
years  and  a  half,  I  have  been  stigmatized  to  the  country  as  an  in- 
stance of  unexampled  waste, — as  an  insatiable  pillager  of  the 
Exchequer? 

Sir,  of  the  pecuniary  charge  I  trust  that  I  may  here  take  my 
leave.  After  my  own  vindication,  however  (which  must  on  every 
account  be  nearest  to  my  heart,)  I  confess,  I  am  most  anxious  to 
put  the  well-intentioned  part  of  the  nation  on  their  guard  against 
those  exaggerations,  for  mischievous  purposes,  by  which  public 
men  are  run  down.  If  the  result  of  this  night  shall  warn  them 
not  to  be  too  easily  misled  into  the  belief  of  monstrous  and  im- 
probable corruptions,  I  cannot  say  that  I  shall  not  still  regret  the 
calumnies  with  which  I  have  been  overwhelmed;  but  I  shall  be 
in  some  degree  rewarded  and  consoled  for  them. 

I  have  thus  disposed  of  the  two  main  heads  of  accusation.  I  have 
shown  that  there  was  a  sincere  and  well-grounded  belief  in  the 
return  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  to  Europe:  and  I  have 


264  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

shown  that  the  cost  of  the  embassy  appointed  to  receive  him  on 
his  return  was  not  only  not  extravagant,  but  that  according  to 
every  test  by  which  expenditure  can  be  tried,  whether  of  contrast 
with  what  had  gone  before,  or  of  comparison  with  what  has  been 
deliberately  established  for  the  future,  it  was  limited  by  a  reason- 
able and  scrupulous  economy. 

Some  minor  charges  remain  to  be  refuted. 

I  am  accused  of  having  held  the  mission  after  all  hope  of  exe- 
cuting the  duty  which  I  undertook  to  fulfil  was  abandoned.  But, 
before  I  enter  on  this  point,  I  am  reminded  that  I  am  accused  also 
of  having  assumed  the  mission  too  soon.  It  is  said  that  I  assumed 
it  in  October,  although  the  Prince  of  Brazil  could  not  be  expected 
in  Europe  for  six  months  from  that  date.  Now  if  there  were 
-any  ground  for  supposing  that  the  return  was  altogether  a  false 
pretence,  the  acceptance  of  the  Embassy  sooner  or  later  would  be 
of  no  consequence;  the  acceptance  of  it  at  all  was  a  crime.  But 
if  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  was  to  come  to  Europe,  there 
was  fair  probability  that  Sir  John  Beresford  might  have  landed 
him  at  Lisbon  in  February.  Sir  John  Beresford  sailed  from 
Portsmouth  on  the  fifth  of  October.  True,  he  was  driven  back 
to  Plymouth  after  having  been  some  days  at  sea.  But,  as  to  the 
length  of  the  passage,  he  did  reach  the  Brazils  in  seven  weeks 
from  the  date  of  his  last  sailing  (that  too  with  a  convoy  under  his 
protection;)  and  it  was  not  only  no  improbable  expectation,  but  it 
was  the  belief  of  Sir  John  Beresford  himself,  stated,  repeatedly  to 
the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal,  that  from  five  to  six  weeks  would 
be  sufficient  for  the  voyage  from  Rio  de  Janeiro.  It  is  true,  that 
the  hypothesis  was,  that  the  Prince  Regent  would  be  ready  to 
embark,  and  would  have  made  all  the  preparations  necessary  for 
his  departure,  between  the  period  of  his  writing  for  a  squadron 
and  its  arrival.  Such  in  fact  was  our  expectation;  and  upon  that 
supposition  (as  I  have  said  before)  the  arrival  at  Lisbon  of  the 
Prince  Regent  himself  would  have  been  the  first  intelligence  that 
would  have  been  received  there  of  his  departure  from  Rio  de  Ja- 
neiro. I  sailed  in  the  beginning  of  November.  I  landed  at  Lis- 
bon (I  think)  on  the  first  of  the  following  month.  I  had  no  more 
doubt  of  the  impatience  of  the  Portuguese  royal  family  to  return 
to  Europe  than  I  have  that  I  am  now  addressing  this  House.  I 
consequently  reckoned  upon  their  arrival  in  Lisbon  almost  as  soon 
after  my  own  as  I  could  conveniently  be  prepared  to  receive 
them.  In  the  month  of  February,  I  well  remember,  we  used  to 
be  looking  out  at  Lisbon,  at  every  favourable  turn  of  the  wind, 
for  the  arrival  of  Sir  John  Beresford  with  his  royal  passengers, 
in  the  Tagus.  The  only  period,  therefore,  during  which  I  can  be 
accused  of  receiving  a  salary  without  executing  a  public  duty,  is 
that  between  the  date  of  my  appointment  and  my  sailing  for  Lis- 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  265 

bon,  a  period  of  about  three  weeks.  Surely  this  then  is  a  charge 
of  minute  and  petty  captiousness.  It  is  said  that  nature  abhors  a 
vacuum;  and  I  believe  it  may  be  equally  said  that  an  Exchequer 
Quarter  abhors  a  fraction.  My  salary  was  reckoned  from  the  10th 
of  October,  the  quarter-day  which  preceded  by  about  ten  days  my 
taking  leave  at  Carlton  House; — and  which  preceded  my  actual 
departure  (as  I  have  said)  by  about  three  week.  Of  the  scores  or 
hundreds  of  missions  which  have  gone  out  from  this  country  for 
the  last  century,  I  very  much  doubt  whether  one  could  be  found 
whose  allowances  had  begun  to  run  from  so  short  a  period  before 
its  departure.  If  this,  Sir,  be  not  a  sufficient  defence  on  such  a 
matter,  I  can  only  give  myself  up  to  the  mercy  of  the  House, 
with  a  frank  expression  of  my  regret  that  I  was  gazetted  three 
weeks  too  soon. 

As  to  retaining  my  office  too  long,  I  have  already  answered  to 
this  point  incidentally;  but  I  must  briefly  answer  to  it  again  here 
in  its  proper  order.  The  first  loose  intimations  of  a  doubt  of  the 
return  of  the  Prince  Regent  to  his  European  dominions,  arrived  in 
England  in  the  month  of  March.  They  reached  me  at  Lisbon  on  the 
9th  of  April.  On  the  10th  of  April  I  wrote  to  the  Foreign  Office, 
tendering  my  resignation.  I  was  desired  to  continue  in  the  exer- 
cise of  my  functions;  and  from  that  moment  the  mission  entirely 
changed  its  character.  I  was  no  longer  the  pageant  Ambassador 
to  a  non-forthcoming  Sovereign.  The  war  had  broken  out,  with 
the  ominous  re-appearance  of  Buonaparte;  and  who  was  there  in 
this  country,  or  in  Europe,  that  ventured  to  predict  its  speedy,  its 
miraculous  termination?  Who  could  presume  to  say  what  might 
be  its  course;  or  what  the  extent  of  effort  required  to  give  effect 
to  its  operations?  Henceforth,  therefore,  I  filled  (whether  worth- 
ily or  not,  is  another  question,)  a  situation  of  business  at  a  not  in- 
significant post,  and  at  a  most  eventful  crisis.  If  /  had  not  been 
on  the  spot,  another  must  have  been  appointed — a  Minister  of  the 
second  order,  if  you  please — but  even  if  so,  with  all  the  allow- 
ances and  expenses  incident  to  a  Minister  of  the  second  order  at 
Lisbon — which  I  have  already  shown  to  be,  according  to  the  re- 
commendation of  the  Civil  List  Report,  substantially  the  same  as 
mine.  Henceforth,  therefore,  I  did  not  add  one  farthing  to  the 
unavoidable  expenses  of  the  country.  It  may  be  alleged,  that  a 
more  able  individual  might  have  been  found  to  discharge  the  du- 
ties of  the  mission;  and  that  I  did  wrong  in  continuing  to  do 
what  others  might  have  done  better;  but  there  is  not  a  shadow  of 
pretence  for  affirming  that  my  continuance  at  Lisbon  laid  any 
burden  upon  the  public,  or  that  any  saving  could  have  been  ef- 
fected by  the  acceptance  of  my  resignation  on  the  10th  of  April. 

It  is  obvious  that  in  the  refusal  to  accept  my  resignation,  I  was 
wholly  passive;  but  neither  does  my  noble  friend  require  any  jus- 
36  y 


266  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

tification  for  having  recommended  to  the  Prince  Regent  to  decline 
accepting  it.  My  noble  friend  is  sufficiently  justified  by  the  case 
itself,  and  by  his  subsequent  conduct.  For  no  sooner  was  the 
battle  of  Waterloo  fought,  and  the  war  thus  happily  ended,  (al- 
most as  soon  as  begun,)  than  my  noble  friend  signified  to  me  His 
Royal  Highness's  acceptance  of  the  resignation  which  had  been 
before  declined.  It  is  true,  that  it  was  not  until  three  months  af- 
ter this  notification  that  I  was  finally  relieved  from  the  mission. 
Amidst  the  important  negotiations  in  which  my  noble  friend  was 
then  engaged,  he  appears  to  have  forgotten  that  he  had  not  ap- 
pointed any  one  to  receive  the  business  and  correspondence  of  the 
Lisbon  mission,  out  of  my  hands.  Portugal  and  myself  had  (no 
wonder)  sunk  into  insignificance  and  oblivion;  and  up  to  the  be- 
ginning of  August  no  successor  to  me  was  appointed.  Did  I  think 
this  a  lucky  chance?  Did  I  go  on  quietly  to  enjoy  the  advantage 
of  this  oblivion  ?  No.  After  about  a  month  had  elapsed  without 
hearing  any  thing  from  the  Foreign  Office,  I  wrote  to  my  noble 
friend  to  remind  him  of  my  existence:  and,  apprehending  him  to 
be — as  he  in  fact  was — absent  from  England,  I  wrote  by  the 
same  packet  a  private  letter  to  Lord  Bathurst,  begging  leave,  in 
case  any  difficulty  should  have  occurred  in  the  nomination  of  a 
successor,  to  recommend  Mr.  Croft  (whom  I  have  already  men- 
tioned as  having  been  first  introduced  to  me  by  my  noble  friend,) 
as  a  person  perfectly  competent  to  act  as  Charge  d' Affaires;  and 
offering,  at  the  same  time,  the  aid  of  my  unofficial  advice,  so  long 
as  I  should  remain  (which  I  intended  to  do  through  the  winter) 
in  Portugal.  I  desire  to  know  if  this  conduct  can  be  character- 
ized  as  a  clinging  to  my  office?  or  whether  my  pertinacity  in  ad- 
hering to  it  was  more  than  exactly  on  a  par  with  my  eagerness  in 
seeking  it? 

Perhaps,  Sir,  I  might  now  sit  down,,  perfectly  satisfied  with 
having  cleared  the  integrity  of  my  conduct;  and,  perhaps,  with  a 
feeling  rather  of  gratitude  than  of  hostility  towards  those  who, 
by  manfully  giving  a  distinct  and  substantive  shape  to  their  al- 
legations, have  afforded  me  an  opportunity  of  refuting  them. 
But  I  cannot  pass  by  the  taunts  of  the  honourable  baronet,  and 
the  grave  admonitions  of  the  honourable  mover  of  the  question, 
without  assuring  them,  that  so  long  as  I  possess  in  my  own  breast 
the  consciousness  of  integrity,  such  assailments,  whether  taunting 
or  monitory,  will  excite  in  it  no  emotion  warmer  than  contempt. 
I  must  above  all  things  assure  the  honourable  baronet,  that  no 
attempt  to  impeach  my  character  and  to  degrade  me  (as  he  flatter- 
ed himself  his  proceeding  might  do)  in  that  estimation  with  this 
House  which  constitutes  all  that  is  valuable,  and  all  that  is  effi- 
cient in  a  public  man — no  such  attempt,  I  say,  will  cause  me  to 
lower  my  voice  one  key,  or  to  abate  one  jot  of  my  exertions,  in 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  267 

opposing  and  exposing  those  doctrines  of  which  the  honourable 
baronet  is  the  representative  and  the  champion.  Let  not  the 
honourable  baronet  flatter  himself  with  any  such  result  from  this 
attack  upon  my  reputation.  Let  him  not  flatter  himself  with  the 
hope  of  such  a  result  from  his  asperity  to-night,  or  from  his 
menaces  for  the  future.  If  I  am  satisfied  to  have  done  right,  for 
the  peace  of  my  own  conscience — I  am  also  glad  to  have  made 
that  right  apparent,  mainly  because  I  know  how  necessary  are 
the  good  opinion  and  the  favouring  attention  of  this  House,  to 
enable  me  to  exert  myself  successfully  for  the  defeat  of  those 
projects  which  the  honourable  baronet  has  at  heart,  and  which,  I 
verily  believe  would  bring  this  country  to  ruin.  The  honourable 
baronet  has  spoken  out:  and  the  only  sentiment  with  which  I  am 
inspired  by  the  bitterness  of  his  declared  enmity,  and  by  the 
burst  of  his  anticipated  triumph,  is  that  of  a  pride — I  hope  an 
honest  and  pardonable  pride — at  the  proof  which  he  has  thus  un- 
intentionally afforded  of  the  reasons  to  which  I  am  indebted  for 
his  hostility.  It  is  because  I  am  held  in  hatred  and  in  fear  by 
those  who  share  the  honourable  baronet's  opinions,  that  by  them 
I  have  been  sought  to  be  destroyed.  I  have  been  sought  to  be 
destroyed,  because  I  have  declared  myself — (with  what  effect  it 
becomes  not  me  to  say,  but  with  all  my  heart  and  soul) — against 
schemes,  which,  if  unchecked,  would  bring  destruction  upon 
those  hallowed  institutions  by  which  the  mixed  and  free  Govern- 
ment of  this  great  kingdom  is  upholden,  and  from  which  the 
practical  blessings  of  our  constitution  are  derived. 

Sir,  I  thus  dismiss  all  that  part  of  the  charges  which,  if  substan- 
tiated, would  have  established  against  me  the  guilt  of  criminality 
or  of  culpable  misconduct.  But  I  wish  to  leave  nothing  unno- 
noticed,  whether  of  charge  or  of  insinuation;  whether  conveying 
the  imputation  of  positive  guilt,  or  only  implying  discredit  and  dis- 
paragement. 

It  is  made  matter  of  accusation  and  reproach  against  me  that  I 
have  accepted  office  with  my  noble  friend  (Lord  Castlereagh)  who 
sits  beside  me, — between  whom  and  myself  it  is  assumed  that  our 
former  differences  had  placed  an  impassable  barrier.  First,  from 
what  quarter  comes  this  reproach  and  accusation?  From  a  bench, 
on  which  I  do  not  see  any  two  neighbours  who  have  not  differed 
from  each  other,  and  that  within  short  memory,  too,  much  more 
essentially  than  myself  and  my  noble  friend.  But  it  is  insinuated 
that  the  differences  between  my  noble  friend  and  myself  were  of 
a  sort  which  precluded  reconciliation!  Since  when  have  such  mat- 
ters become  topics  of  parliamentary  discussion?  Since  when  has 
it  been  the  practice  of  this  House  to  take  cognizance  of  the  disa- 
greements of  individuals,  and  to  indulge  in  such  animadversions 
on  the  most  delicate  topics  of  personal  conduct  as  in  private  so- 


268  EMBASSY  TO  LISBON. 

ciety  no  gentleman  would  venture  to  hazard  ?  Since  when,  I  say, 
has  this  practice  commenced?  and  how  far  is  it  to  be  carried?  I 
know  of  no  precedent  for  it.  I  know  of  no  authority.  It  is  not 
for  my  own  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  this  House,  that  I  protest 
against  it;  for  if  this  practice  be  permitted,  our  discussions  must 
inevitably  sink  into  grosser  personalities  than  have  disgraced  the 
meetings  of  Palace  Yard  and  of  Spa  Fields. 

The  honourable  baronet  is  entirely  mistaken  as  to  what  he  sup- 
poses me  to  have  addressed  to  my  constituents  at  Liverpool  in 
1812.  Nothing  that  I  then  said  was  intended  to  convey,  or  did 
convey,  the  notion  that  I  was  precluded  by  any  feeling,  or  (in  my 
own  judgment)  by  any  principle,  from  acting  in  office  with  my 
noble  friend.  I  had  declared  the  directly  contrary  opinion  some 
months  before,  in  a  correspondence  respecting  the  formation  of  an 
Administration,  which  the  discussions  of  those  times  brought  be- 
fore the  public,  and  which  is  now  upon  record.  What  is  not  pub- 
licly recorded  is,  that  some  time  after  those  discussions  had  closed, 
but  six  or  eight  weeks  before  my  Election  at  Liverpool,  other  ne- 
gotiations, which  had  for  their  object  my  return  to  office,  had 
taken  place;  amongst  the  proposed  arrangements  of  which,  my  no- 
ble friend,  with  a  manliness  and  generosity  which  I  hope  I  felt  as 
they  deserved,  had  voluntarily  tendered  to  my  acceptance  the 
seals  of  the  office  which  he  now  holds.  Other  reasons  induced 
me  to  decline  that  tender;  I  might  be  right  or  wrong  in  my  view 
of  those  reasons.  One  among  them  was,  that  I  was  at  that  time 
embarrassed  with  respect  to  a  most  important  question  (the  dis- 
cussion of  which  is  now  fixed  for  no  distant  day)  by  pledges 
which  I  could  best  hope  to  redeem  with  unquestioned  fidelity  and 
honour,  by  remaining  out  of  office  till  I  had  redeemed  them.  But 
what  would  be  thought  of  me,  what  should  I  deserve  to  be  thought 
of  by  any  liberal  mind,  if,  after  such  a  transaction  as  I  have  de- 
scribed, I  could  ever  pause  for  a  moment,  to  consider  in  what  or- 
der with  respect  to  each  other  my  noble  friend  and  I  should  march 
towards  our  common  objects  in  the  service  of  the  country?  In 
that  transaction,  any  feelings  which  had  previously  separated  my 
noble  friend  and  myself  were  buried  for  ever.  The  very  memory 
of  them  was  effaced  from  our  minds:  nor  can  I  compliment  the 
good  taste  of  those  who  would  call  them  up  from  oblivion;  surely 
not  with  the  vain  hope  of  exasperating  differences  anew,  but  with 
the  purpose  of  making  a  reconcilement  now  of  five  years'  stand- 
ing, a  subject  of  suspicion,  taunt,  and  obloquy. 

What  I  have  said,  Sir,  is,  I  hope,  a  sufficient  comment  upon  the 
notable  discovery  that  I  accepted  public  employment  not  with, 
but  under,  my  noble  friend.  This  paltry  distinction,  I  can  assure 
those  who  are  so  vain  of  it,  occasions  me  not  the  slightest  uneasi- 
ness.    When  Lord  Pembroke  went  out  to  Vienna,  and  the  Mar- 


EMBASSY  TO  LISBON.  269 

quis  Wellesley  to  Spain,  during  (or  under,  if  you  will)  my  ad- 
ministration of  the  Foreign  Department,  had  I  the  ridiculous  van- 
ity to  fancy  that  these  distinguished  noblemen  acted  under  me,  in 
any  sense  of  degrading  subordination  ?  Or  is  it  imagined  that  when 
the  Duke  of  Wellington  undertook  his  mission  to  Paris,  my  no- 
ble friend  conceived  that  he  was  therefore  entitled  to  claim  pre- 
eminence over  the  deliverer  of  Europe?  They  know  little,  Sir, 
of  the  spirit  of  our  Constitution,  they  are  very  ill  acquainted  with 
the  duties  that  it  imposes,  and  the  privileges  that  it  confers,  who 
are  not  aware,  that  in  whatever  station  a  man  may  be  called  upon 
to  serve  his  Sovereign  and  his  country,  there  is  among  statesmen, 
co-operating  honestly  for  the  public  good,  a  real  substantive  equal- 
ity which  no  mere  official  arrangement  can  either  create  or  destroy; 
they,  who  are  yet  to  learn,  that  in  a  free  country  like  ours,  it  is  for 
the  man  to  dignify  the  office,  not  for  the  office  to  dignify  the  man. 
Sir,  I  have  now  done.  I  have  humbly  to  apologize  to  the 
House  for  having  trespassed  upon  them  so  long,  and  to  thank  them 
for  their  indulgent  attention.  The  manner  in  which  I  have  been 
heard  by  the  House,  has  been  such  as  satisfies  me  that  they  justly 
and  kindly  considered  how  much  I  had  at  stake  on  this  day.  If 
I  have  succeeded,  (as  my  conscience  tells  me  that  I  must  have 
done,)  in  refuting  the  charges  brought  against  me,  I  have  not 
spoken  in  vain;  and  you,  Sir,  will  not  regret  having  listened  to 
me.  If  I  have  not  succeeded;  if  the  House  shall  be  of  opinion 
that  any  stain  remains  upon  my  character,  then,  indeed,  Sir,  have 
I  troubled  you  too  long;  but  I  have  troubled  you  for  the  last 
time. 

Sir  T.  Ackland  said,  that  he  was  confident  the  candour  of  the  honourable 
baronet  (Sir  F.  Burdett)  would  not  permit  him  to  hesitate  in  pronouncing  the 
full  acquittal  of  a  person  accused,  who  had  proved  himself  to  be  innocent. 
After  a  speech  so  eloquent,  which  had  thrilled  through  every  heart  in  the 
House,  he  should  have  been  proud  to  have  been  accused,  in  order  to  have  so 
defended  himself. 

The  House  divided : — 

For  Mr.  Lambton's  Motion  96 

Against  it         .-.-..      270 

Majority  174 


■y* 


270 


VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  THE  MARQUIS  OF  HAST- 
INGS, AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA. 

MARCH  4th,  1819. 

Mr.  Canning — 

Mr.  Speaker, — I  rise,  in  pursuance  of  the  notice  given  by  me 
to  the  House  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  to  propose  a  vote  of 
Thanks  to  the  Marquis  of  Hastings,  and  to  the  Officers  and  Troops 
who  served  under  his  command  during  the  late  Campaign  in  In- 
dia. This  vote,  I  wish  the  House  to  understand,  is  intended 
merely  as  a  tribute  to  the  military  conduct  of  the  campaign,  and 
not  in  any  wise  as  a  sanction  of  the  policy  of  the  war.  I  feel  it 
necessary  to  state  this  reservation  the  more  emphatically,  lest, 
from  my  having  deferred  my  proposition  until  the  papers  which 
the  Prince  Regent  was  graciously  pleased  to  direct  to  be  laid  be- 
fore us,  had  been  for  some  time  in  the  hands  of  the  members  of 
the  House,  any  apprehension  should  be  entertained  that  I  wished 
the  policy  of  the  measures  adopted  in  India  to  be  discussed  on 
this  occasion,  with  the  view  of  conveying  in  the  Vote  of  Thanks 
an  implicit  general  approbation.  I  assure  you,  Sir,  that  I  have  no 
such  object  in  view.  The  political  character  of  Lord  Hastings' 
late  measures  forms  no  part  of  the  question  upon  which  I  shall 
ask  the  House  to  decide.  My  object  in  the  present  motion  is  to 
acknowledge  with  due  praise  and  gratitude  the  splendid  services 
of  the  Indian  army.  I  was,  indeed,  anxious  to  have  the  papers 
upon  the  table,  because  some  statement  of  the  political  relations 
of  the  different  parties  in  the  late  hostilities,  in  the  way,  not  of 
argument  but  of  narrative,  seems  necessary,  to  render  intelligi- 
ble the  origin  and  operations  of  the  war.  From  these  papers  I 
will  describe  as  succinctly  as  I  can,  the  situation  in  which  the 
British  Government  found  itself  plrced  towards  the  different  na- 
tive powers  of  India:  and  if,  in  performing  this  task,  I  should  let 
slip  any  expression  of  my  own  opinions  as  to  the  policy  of  the 
Governor  General  (and  it  may  be  hardly  possible  to  avoid  doing 
so,  whatever  caution  I  endeavour  to  observe,)  I  beg  to  be  under- 
stood as  by  no  means  calling  upon  the  House  to  adopt  those  opin- 
ions. In  agreeing  to  the  vote  to  which  I  trust  they  will  agree 
this  evening,  they  will  dismiss  altogether  from  their  consideration 
the  preliminary  observations  with  which  I  introduce  it. 

I  approach  the  subject,  Sir,  with  the  greater  caution  and  deli- 
cacy, because  I  know  with  how  much  jealousy  the  House  and  the 
country  are  in  the  habit  of  appreciating  the  triumphs  of  our  arms 


VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS,  &c.       271 

in  India.  I  know  well  that,  almost  uniformly  successful  as  our 
military  operations  in  that  part  of  the  world  have  been,  they  have 
almost  as  uniformly  been  considered  as  questionable  in  point  of 
justice.  Hence  the  termination  of  a  war  in  India,  however  glo- 
rious, is  seldom  contemplated  with  unmixed  satisfaction.  That 
sentiment  generally  receives  some  qualification  from  a  notion,  in 
most  cases  perhaps  rather  assumed  than  defined,  that  the  war  is 
likely  to  have  been  provoked  on  our  part,  with  motives  very  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  self-defence.  Notions  of  this  sort  have  un- 
doubtedly taken  deep  root  in  the  public  mind:  but  I  am  confident 
that  in  the  present  instance  (and  I  verily  believe  on  former  occa- 
sions which  are  gone  by,  and  with  which  it  is  no  business  of  mine 
to  meddle  at  present)  a  case  is  to  be  made  out  as  clear  for  the  jus- 
tice of  the  British  cause,  as  for  the  prowess  of  the  British  arms. 
Neither,  however,  do  I  accuse  of  want  of  candour  those  who  en- 
tertain such  notions;  nor  do  I  pretend  to  deny  that  the  course  of 
Indian  history  since  our  first  acquaintance  with  that  country,  fur- 
nishes some  apparent  foundation  for  them.  It  is  not  unnatural 
that,  in  surveying  that  vast  continent,  presenting  as  it  does,  from 
the  Boorampooter  to  the  Indus,  and  from  the  northern  mountains 
to  the  sea — an  area  of  somewhere  about  one  million  of  square 
miles,  and  containing  not  less  than  one  hundred  millions  of  inhab- 
itants; in  looking  back  to  the  period  when  our  possessions  there 
consisted  only  of  a  simple  factory  on  the  coast  for  the  purposes 
of  a  permitted  trade,  and  in  comparing  that  period  with  the  pres- 
ent, when  that  factory  has  swelled  into  an  empire;  when  about 
one-third  in  point  of  extent,  and  about  three-fifths  in  point  of  pop- 
ulation, of  those  immense  territories  are  subject  immediately  to 
British  Government;  when  not  less  than  another  fourth  of  the 
land,  and  another  fifth  of  the  inhabitants,  are  under  rulers  either 
tributary  to  the  British  power  or  connected  with  it  by  close  alli- 
ance; it  is  not  unnatural  that,  upon  such  survey  and  comparison, 
prejudices  should  have  arisen  against  the  rapid  growth  of  our  In- 
dian establishment;  that  its  increase  should  have  been  ascribed, 
not  only  by  enemies  or  rivals,  but  by  sober  reflection  and  by  im- 
partial philosophy,  to  a  spirit  of  systematic  encroachment  and  am- 
bition. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  a  power  so  situated  as  ours,  a  power 
planted  in  a  foreign  soil,  and  without  natural  root  in  the  habits  or 
affections  of  the  people;  compelled  to  struggle,  first  for  its  exist- 
ence, and  then  for  its  security,  and,  in  process  of  time,  for  the  de- 
fence of  allies  from  whom  it  might  have  derived  encouragement 
and  aid,  against  nations  in  the  habit  of  changing  their  masters  on 
every  turn  of  fortune,  and,  the  greater  part  already  reduced  under 
governments  founded  by  successful  invasion;  in  a  power  so  situa- 
ed,  it  can  hardly  be  matter  of  surprise  that  there  should  have  been 


272  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS, 

found  an  irrepressible  tendency  to  expansion.  It  may  be  a  miti- 
gation, if  not  a  justification,  of  such  a  tendency,  that  the  inroads 
which  it  has  occasioned  have  grown  out  of  circumstances  hard  to 
be  controlled:  that  the  alternative  has  been,  in  each  successive  in- 
stance, conquest  or  extinction;  and  that,  in  consequence,  we  have 
prevailed  for  the  most  part  over  preceding  conquerors,  and  have 
usurped,  if  usurped,  upon  older  usurpations. 

But,  with  all  that  may  be  said  in  excuse  for  this  disposition  of 
our  Indian  empire  to  stretch  its  limits  wider  every  day,  far  am  I, 
very  far,  from  describing  it  as  a  disposition  to  be  fostered  and  in- 
dulged; or  from  undervaluing  the  constant  laudable  exertions  of 
the  British  Parliament  to  check  its  progress,  and,  if  possible,  to 
counteract  its  impulse.  Would  to  God  that  we  could  find,  or 
rather  that  we  could  long  ago  have  found,  the  point,  the  resting- 
place,  at  which  it  was  possible  to  stand !  But  the  finding  of  that 
point  has  not  depended  upon  ourselves  alone. 

I  state  these  considerations  rather  as  qualifying  generally  the 
popular  and  sweeping  condemnations  of  Indian  warfare,  than  as 
necessary  or  applicable   in  the  case  of  the  present  war.     I  refer 
to  the  wise  and  sober  enactments  of  the  British  Parliament,  not 
to  dispute  their  authority  or  to  set  aside  their  operation;  but  be- 
cause I  can  with  confidence  assert,  that  at  no  period  of  our  Indian 
history,  have  the  recorded  Acts  and  Votes  of  Parliament  been 
made  more  faithfully  the  basis  of  instructions  to  the  Government 
in  India  than  at  the  period  when  the  Marquis  of  Hastings  as- 
sumed the  supreme  authority.     It  is  but  justice  to  the  executive 
body  of  the  East  India  Company  to  say,  that  the  whole  course 
and  tenour  of  their  instructions  has  been  uniformly  and  steadily 
adverse  to   schemes  of  aggrandizement,  and   to  any  war  which 
could  safely  and  honourably  be  avoided.     It  is  but  justice  to  the 
memory  of  the  noble  person,  whom   I   succeeded   in  the  office 
which  I  have  the  honour  to  hold,  to  say,  that  he  uniformly  incul- 
cated the  same  forbearing  policy,  and  laboured  to  turn  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Indian  Governments  from  the  extension  of  external 
acquisitions  or  connexions  to  the  promotion  of  internal  improve- 
ment.    And  having  said  this,  it  may  not  be  an  unpardonable  de- 
gree of  presumption  in  me  to  add,  that  I  have  continued  to  walk 
in  the  path  of  my  predecessor;  that  I  have  omitted  no  occasion 
of  adding  my  exhortations  to  those  which  I  found  recorded  in 
my  olfice,  against  enterprizes  of  ambition  and  wars  of  conquest. 
So  strongly  and  so  recently  had  the  pacific  system  been  recom- 
mended, that  upon  the  eve  of  the  breaking  out  of  the  late  hostil- 
ities, the  hands  of  the  Supreme  Government  were  absolutely  tied 
up  from  any  foreign  undertakings,  except  in  a  case  of  the  most 
pressing  exigency.     Such  an  exigency  alone  produced,  or  could 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  273 

justify,  the  war,  the  glorious  result  of  which  the  House  is  now 
called  upon  to  mark  by  its  vote. 

That  war  takes  its  denomination  from  the  power  against  which 
it  was  in  the  first  instance  exclusively  directed,  the  Pindarries:  a 
power  so  singular  and  anomalous,  that  perhaps  no  exact  resem- 
blance could  be  found  for  it  in  history;  a  power  without  recog- 
nized government  or  national  existence;  the  force  of  which,  as 
developed  in  the  papers  upon  the  table,  is  numerically  so  small, 
that  many  persons  have,  naturally  enough,  found  themselves  ?.t  a 
loss  to  conceive  how  it  could  be  necessary  for  the  suppression  of 
such  a  force  to  make  preparations  so  extensive.  It  is  true  that  the 
Pindarries  consisted  only  of  from  thirty  thousand  to  forty  thou- 
sand regular  and  irregular  horse;  capable,  however,  of  receiving 
continual  reinforcements,  and  of  eluding,  by  the  celerity  of  their 
movements,  the  attack  of  regular  armies.  Remnants  of  former 
wars — the  refuse  of  a  disbanded  soldiery — they  constituted  a 
nucleus  round  which  might  assemble  all  that  was  vagabond  and 
disaffected — all  that  was  incapable  of  honest  industry  and  peace- 
ful occupation — all  that  was  opposed  in  habit  and  in  interest  to  a 
system  of  settled  tranquillity  in  Hindostan.  Hostilities  against 
them  could,  therefore,  be  undertaken  only  at  the  risk  of  bringing 
into  action  all  the  elements  of  a  restless  and  dissatisfied  popula- 
tion; and  the  hazards  to  be  calculated  were  not  merely  those 
arising  from  their  positive  strength,  but  those  also  which  might 
arise  from  the  contagion  of  their  excitement  and  example. 

It  was  not,  however,  from  mere  speculation  as  to  the  danger  to 
be  apprehended  from  such  a  body  collecting  and  bringing  into 
activity  the  unquiet  and  dissolute  of  all  manner  of  castes  and 
tongues  and  religions;  it  was  not  from  theoretical  conviction  of 
the  incompatibility  of  the  existence  of  such  a  power  in  central 
India,  with  the  maintenance  of  social  order  and  general  peace, 
that  the  late  war  was  undertaken.  The  Indian  Government, 
however  confident  its  persuasion  upon  these  points  might  be — 
however  keen  its  sense  of  the  perils  to  which  the  peace  of  India 
was  exposed — were  too  fast  bound  by  their  instructions  to  strike 
the  first  blow,  or  to  engage  in  war  upon  any  less  provocation  than 
that  of  positive  aggression,  either  against  the  British  power  itself, 
or  against  allies  whom  its  faitli  was  pledged  to  defend.  The  war 
was  provoked  by  actual  aggressions,  such  as  no  government  could 
endure  without  the  neglect  of  a  sacred  duty.  The  native  popula- 
tion would,  without  doubt,  have  had  just  reason  to  complain  if  the 
British  Government,  having  superseded  those  who  would  have 
sympathize!  with  their  sufferings,  had  omitted  to  avenge  injuries 
which  the  awe  of  the  British  name  ought  perhaps  to  have  been 
sufficient  to  prevent.  Neither  was  it  one  aggression  only,  nor  a 
series  of  aggressions,  confined  to  one  year,  that  called  for  chas- 
37 


274  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS 

tisement:  nor  was  it  against  distant  provinces,  or  obscure  depen- 
dencies of  the  British  power,  that  these  injuries  had  been  directed. 
So  lonff  ago  as  1812  an  irruption  was  made  into  Bengal;  in  1813 
into  the  territory  of  Bombay;  and  in  1S16,  accompanied  with  cir- 
cumstances of  extraordinary  audacity  and  outrage,  into  that  of 
Madras.  Of  this  last  irruption  intelligence  was  received  in  Eng- 
land, within  a  few  weeks  after  the  final  and  most  peremptory  in- 
junctions of  a  forbearing  policy  had  been  despatched  to  India: 
and  this  intelligence  it  was  that  determined  the  Government  at 
home  so  far  to  relax  those  injunctions,  as  to  loose  the  hands  of  the 
Indian  Government  specially  against  the  invaders.  Even  without 
such  specific  permission,  the  Government  in  India  could  not 
longer  have  forborne;  unless  it  had  forgotten  what  it  owed  to  its 
subjects,  and  had  not  been  contented  to  forfeit  its  good  name 
throughout  the  territory  of  Hindostan.  And  it  is  but  justice  to 
that  Government  to  say,  that  it  had  taken  on  its  own  responsbility 
a  determination  conformable  to  its  character  and  its  duty.  For- 
tunately, the  delays  incident  to  the  season  at  which  this  deter- 
mination was  taken,  enabled  the  Marquis  of  Hastings  to  receive 
from  home  a  warrant  for  his  proceedings,  before  he  began  to  act 
on  his  own  discretion. 

The  war,  therefore,  against  the  Pindarries  was  undertaken  by 
the  Indian  Government,  with  the  full  concurrence  of  the  Govern- 
ment at  home.     And  what  was  the   nature  of  the  aggressions 
which  called  for  this  concurrence?    Nothing  can  be  imagined 
more  dreadful  than  the  irruptions  of  the  Pindarries.     There  is  no 
excess  of  lawless  violence  which  they  did  not  perpetrate;  no  de- 
gree of  human  suffering  which  they  were  not  in  the  habit  of  in- 
flicting.    Rapine,  murder  in  all  its  shapes,  torture,  rape,  and  con- 
flagration, were  not  rare  and  accidental  occurrences  in  their  prog- 
ress, but  the  uniform  and  constant  objects  of  their  every  enterprize, 
and  the  concomitants  of  every  success.     After  ravaging  tracts  of 
country  of  all  visible  wealth,  they  inflicted  torture  on  innocence, 
helplessness  and  age,  for  the  purpose  of  extorting  the  avowal  and 
indication  of  hidden  treasure.     There  were  instances  where  the 
whole  female  population  of  a  village  precipitated  themselves  into 
the  wells,  as  the  only  refuge  from  these  brutal  and  barbarous 
spoilers;  where,  at  their  approach,  fathers  of  families  surrounded 
their  own  dwellings  with  fuel,  and  perished  with  their  children 
in  the  flames  kindled  by  their  own  hands.   If  it  were  not  a  shame 
to  add  to  such  details  any  thing  like  a  calculation  of  pecuniary 
loss,  it  might  be  added,  that  this  last  invasion  was  calculated  to 
have  cost,  in  booty  and  in  wanton  waste,  scarcely  less  than  a  mil- 
lion sterling. 

No  wonder  then  that  the  Government  of  India  had  resolved  to 
avenge  and  chastise  such  unparalled  atrocities  so  soon  as  the  sea- 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  275 

son  for  taking  the  field  should  arrive,  even  had  they  not  received 
any  previous  sanction  from  England.  No  wonder  that  the  Gov- 
ernment at  home  had  not  hesitated  to  revoke  its  interdicts  of  war, 
and  to  qualify  its  injunctions  of  forbearance,  upon  receipt  of  de- 
tails so  afflicting  to  every  feeling  of  human  nature. 

It  is  obvious  from  what  I  have  already  stated,  that  a  war  once 
excited  in  India  might  draw  into  its  vortex  many  whom  fear  of 
our  power  only  kept  at  peace.  With  respect  to  the  Pindarries 
themselves,  the  difficulty  was  to  find  an  opportunity  of  striking  a 
decisive  blow.  Attacked,  routed,  scattered  in  all  directions,  they 
would  speedily  collect  and  congregate  again;  as  a  globule  of 
quicksilver,  dispersing  for  a  moment  under  the  pressure  of  the 
finger,  re-unites  as  soon  as  that  pressure  is  withdrawn.  But  the 
Pindarries  had  also  chances  of  external  support.  They  had,  many 
of  them,  been  trained  to  arms  in  the  service  of  Scindia,  the 
greatest  among  the  native  princes  who  maintain  an  independent 
rule;  in  the  service  of  Holkar,  long  the  rival  of  Scindia  for  pre- 
ponderance in  the  Mahratta  confederacy;  and  in  that  of  Meer 
Khan,  a  Mahometan  adventurer,  who,  originally  employed  as  an 
auxiliary  by  Holkar,  had  the  address  to  render  himself,  for  a  time, 
master  of  the  Government  which  he  had  been  called  in  to  sup- 
port, and  to  carve  out  for  himself,  in  return  for  his  abdication  of 
that  influence,  a  substantive  and  independent  sovereignty.  How- 
ever contemptible  therefore  in  themselves,  when  compared  with 
the  numerous  and  well-trained  armies  of  the  British  Government, 
yet,  as  the  fragments  of  bands  that  had  been  led  by  formidable 
chieftains,  to  whom  they  still  professed  allegiance,  these  vagrant 
hordes  might  be  the  means  of  calling  into  action  Powers  of  greater 
magnitude  and  resources, — Scindia,  Holkar,  and  lastly  Meer 
Khan,  himself  essentially  a  predatory  Power,  and  the  leader  only 
of  more  regular  and  disciplined  Pindarries.  Nor  was  this  the  ut- 
most extent  of  danger  to  be  apprehended.  Suspicions  might  also 
be  naturally  entertained  that  the  other  Mahratta  Powers  were  not 
displeased  to  see  the  British  authority,  against  which  they  had 
more  than  once  combined  with  all  their  forces  in  vain,  weakened 
in  effect  and  in  opinion  by  the  unavenged  attack  of  such  despicable 
antagonists;  and  that  when  the  occasion  should  ripen,  they  might 
not  be  disinclined  to  revenge  and  retrieve  their  former  defeats. 
But  whatever  might  be  the  extent  of  immediate  hostility  to  be 
encountered,  or  the  chances  of  future  danger  to  be  calculated,  the 
case  was  one  which  did  not  admit  of  doubt.  The  most  beneficial 
acquisitions  of  territory  would  not  have  justified  the  incurring 
either  the  expense  or  the  hazard  of  a  war;  but  no  hazard  and  no 
expense  could  be  put  in  competition  with  the  vindication  of  na- 
tional honour,  and  the  discharge  of  national  duty. 

In  the  endeavour  to  render  intelligible  the  origin  and  operations 


276  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS 

of  the  war,  I  fear  I  may  have  trespassed  much  too  long  with  pre- 
fatory matter  upon  the  patience  of  the  House.  But  it  will  be  felt 
that  in  offering  these  explanations,  I  have  incidentally  disposed 
of  a  question  strictly  military,  which  I  have  mentioned  as  sug- 
gesting itself  on  the  first  view  of  Lord  Hastings'  undertaking — 
how  it  happened  that  preparations  on  so  large  a  scale  were  neces- 
sary for  the  suppression  of  a  horde  of  30,000  horsemen  ?  Ban- 
ditti as  they  were,  it  will  have  been  shown  that  they  touched  in 
near  relation  three  powerful  independent  chiefs  of  India; — friendly 
indeed  by  the  existing  state  of  peaceful  relations,  but  in  character, 
and  habit,  and  interest,  our  foes.  It  will  have  been  shown,  that 
two  of  these  three  chiefs  being  members  of  the  great  Mahratta 
confederacy,  it  would  not  have  become  a  prudent  statesman  to  lay 
out  of  his  contemplation  the  possibility,  however  remote — how- 
ever in  the  name  of  good  faith  to  be  disbelieved  and  deprecated 
— that  the  nominal  head  and  the  other  members  of  that  confede- 
racy, the  Peishwah,  the  Rajah  of  Nagpore,  and  the  prince  known 
by  the  title  of  the  Guickwar  (whose  dominions  are  situated  on 
the  western  side  of  Hindostan)  might,  if  the  course  of  events 
should  be  protracted  or  untoward,  forget  the  obligations  of  trea- 
ties, and  make  common  cause  with  those  whose  hostility  we  more 
nearly  apprehended. 

In  fact,  of  these  last  mentioned  Mahratta  States,  our  allies  and 
tributaries,  the  Guickwar  is  the  only  one  that  did  not,  in  the 
course  of  the  war,  take  part  with  our  enemies.  The  Peishwah 
and  the  Rajah  of  Nagpore,  though  recently  bound  to  us  by  the 
most  solemn  engagements — and  the  latter  particularly  by  the 
most  signal  benefits — did  avail  themselves  of  the  earliest  oppor- 
tunity to  declare  against  us: — with  a  treachery  which,  to  Lord 
Hastings'  trusting  and  generous  nature,  was  unexpected;  but 
which,  though  unexpected,  did  not  take  him  unprepared. 

I  now  come,  Sir,  to  the  operations  in  the  field:  upon  which, 
extensive  and  complicated  as  they  were — spread  over  so  wide  a 
theatre,  and  involving  so  much  intricacy  of  military  detail — I  do 
not  presume  to  venture  to  speak  with  any  particularity;  or  to 
offer  myself  as  a  guide  to  the  House  through  a  labyrinth,  which 
I  have  neither  skill  nor  practice  to  enable  me  to  trace.  I  shall 
confine  myself  to  the  general  course,  and  character,  and  results, 
of  the  campaign. 

The  House  has  seen  that  when  the  Governor  General  pre- 
pared to  take  the  field  against  the  Pindarries,  he  looked  forward 
to  the  possible  hostility  of  Scindia,  Holkar,  and  Meer  Khan. 
With  the  Peishwah — a  prince  the  most  important  from  the  influ- 
ence of  his  high  rank  among  the  Mahratta  States — and  with  the 
Rajah  of  Nagpore,  treaties  had  been  recently  signed  and  ratified, 
under  such  fair  seeming  protestations  of  good  faith  and  friend- 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  277 

ship,  that,  so  far  as  instruments  and  professions  could  be  binding, 
the  fidelity  of  these  Powers  seemed  assured.  The  treaties  to 
which  I  refer  are  the  first  and  second  in  the  collection  upon  the 
Table. 

So  effectual  were  the  plans  and  dispositions  of  Lord  Hastings, 
that  Scindia,  the  most  formidable  of  his  expected  enemies,  was 
overawed,  and  compressed,  as  it  were,  into  a  new  treaty  which 
pledged  him  to  active  co-operation  against  the  Pindarries.     The 
utmost  extent  of  the  stipulations  of  this  treaty  cannot  be  said  to 
have  been  very  diligently  fulfilled  by  him:  but  so  far  the  object 
of  it  was  effected  that  he  at  least  remained  neutral  during  the 
campaign.     Whether  in  this  respect  Scindia  acted  under  the  im- 
pulse of  fear,  or  was  persuaded  by  arguments  addressed  to  his 
interest  and  ambition,  the  prudence  of  the  Governor-General  is 
equally  conspicuous:    it  detracts   nothing  from  military  skill  to 
have   been  aided  by  political  sagacity.     As  to  Meer  Khan,  the 
overwhelming  force  which  Lord  Hastings  brought  to  bear  upon 
him  compelled  his  immediate  acquiescence  and  submission.     He 
withdrew  his  troops,  and  surrendered  his  artillery.    It  remains  to 
speak  of  the  third  power  whose  hostility  was  expected — Holkar. 
With  Holkar's  Government,  (the  actual  chief  being  a  minor)  ne- 
gotiations were  for  some  time  carried  on:  regarding  which,  the 
papers  on  the  table  contain  information  somewhat  less  ample  than 
could  be  wished;  as,  by  some  omission,  no  doubt  accidental,  va- 
rious documents  relating  to  these  transactions  have  not  yet  reach- 
ed this  country.     That  Lord  Hastings  had  been  in  negotiation 
with  the  Regent,  the  mother  of  the  young  Rajah,  and  that  great 
hopes  were  indulged  of  a  favourable  issue,  is  clear:  but  how  these 
hopes  were  disappointed  does  not  appear  in  the  documents  before 
the  House.   I  am,  however,  enabled  to  add  to  what  appears  in  the 
papers,  one  fact,  the  particulars  of  which  have  only  come  to  my 
knowledge  within  a  few  clays.    A  short  time  before  the  great  and 
decisive  battle  with  the  forces  of  Holkar,  one  of  the  refractory 
and  disaffected  chieftains  in  his  council  took  this  summary  meth- 
od of  over-ruling  the  policy  of  the  Regent:  he  entered  her  tent 
at  night,  dragged  her  out  by  her  hair,  and  severing  her  head  from 
her  body,  cast  both  into  the  river.     Of  the  change  thus  suddenly 
wrought  in  Holkar's  counsels,  the  first  indication  was  an  attack 
by  the  army  of  Holkar  on  the  troops  composing  the  advanced 
guard  of  Sir  Thomas  Ilislop. 

This  brings  me  to  the  battle  of  Maheidpore — the  only  great 
general  action  which  occurred  in  the  course  of  the  campaign.  Of 
this  battle  I  feel  myself  incompetent,  even  if  it  were  necessary, 
to  enter  into  the  military  details:  the  Gazettes  furnish  a  more 
perspicuous  account  of  it  than  I  could  pretend  to  offer.  But  I 
may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  more  determined  gallantry,  more 

z 


218  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS 

inflexible  perseverance,  or  greater  exertion  of  mind  and  body  on 
the  part  of  every  individual  engaged,  were  never  displayed  than 
in  the  battle  of  Maheidpore.  The  result  was,  the  defeat  and  dis- 
solution of  the  army  of  the  enemy,  though  not  without  a  loss  on 
our  side,  deeply  to  be  deplored.  This  victory  recommends  to  the 
gratitude  of  the  House  the  name  of  Sir  Thomas  Hislop,  by  whose 
conduct  and  under  whose  auspices  it  was  won;  and  that  of  Sir 
John  Malcolm — second  in  command  on  that  occasion — second  to 
none  in  renown,  whose  name  will  be  remembered  in  India  as 
long  as  the  British  tongue  is  spoken,  or  the  British  flag  hoisted 
throughout  that  vast  territory. 

The  result  of  this  battle,  as  it  was  the  complete  dissolution  of 
the  army  of  Holkar,  so  was  it  that  of  the  confederacy  among  the 
Mahratta  Powers,  which  had  long  been  secretly  formed,  and  which 
an  unprosperous  or  even  a  doubtful  issue  of  our  first  action  in  the 
field,  would  unquestionably  have  brought  into  full  play.  A  treaty 
of  peace  was  forthwith  negotiated  with  Holkar,  by  which  were 
ceded  to  us  all  his  possessions  on  the  south  side  of  the  river  Ner- 
budda:  and  the  remainder  of  the  campaign,  so  far  as  this  member 
of  the  hostile  confederacy  was  concerned,  consisted  in  collecting 
for  the  British  Government  the  scattered  fragments  of  his  dis- 
membered chieftainship. 

While  the  campaign  was  proceeding  thus  successfully  against 
those  whom  Lord  Hastings  had  taken  into  account  as  probable 
enemies,  their  number  was  unexpectedly  increased  by  the  addi- 
tion of  the  Peishwah,  the  executive  head  of  the  Mahratta  empire; 

who  suddenly  broke  the  ties  which  bound  him  (as  has  been  seen) 

in  the  strictest  amity  to  the  British  Government.     Even  Sir  John 
Malcolm — better  qualified  perhaps  than  any  other  person  to  fath- 
om the  designs  and  estimate  the  sincerity  of  the  native  Powers — 
had  been  so  far  imposed  upon,  in  an  interview  with  that  prince  at 
Poonah,  as  to  express  to  Lord  Hastings  his  perfect  conviction  that 
the  friendly  professions  of  the  Peishwah  deserved  entire  confi- 
dence.    In  the  midst  of  this  unsuspecting  tranquillity,  at  a  mo- 
ment now  known  to  have  been  concerted  with  the  other  Mahratta 
chieftains,  the  Peishwah  manifested  his  real  intentions  by  an  un- 
provoked attack  upon  the  residency  (the  house  of  the  British 
Resident)  at  Poonah.     Mr.  Elphinstone  (a  name  distinguished  in 
the  literature  as  well  as  in  the  politics  of  the  East)  exhibited  on 
that  trying  occasion,  military  courage  and  skill  which,  though  val- 
uable accessories  to  diplomatic  talents,  we  are  not  entitled  to  re- 
quire as  necessary  qualifications  for  civil  employment.     On  that, 
and  not  on  that  occasion  only,  but  on  many  others  in  the  course 
of  this  singular  campaign,  Mr.  Elphinstone  displayed  talents  and 
resources,  which  would  have  rendered  him  no  mean  general,  in  a 
country  where  generals  are  of  no  mean  excellence  and  reputation. 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  279 

The  gallant  resistance  of  Lieutenant-Colonel  Burr,  at  the  head 
of  the  small  force  cantoned  in  the  vicinity  of  Poonah,  to  the  con- 
centrated army  of  the  Peishwah, — and  the  brilliant  and  decisive 
victory  subsequently  gained  over  that  army  by  Brigadier-General 
Smith,  stand  recorded  in  the  Gazette — memorable  instances  of 
British  valour.  Nor  less  memorable  is  the  instance  of  British 
moderation  displayed  by  General  Smith  after  his  victory,  in 
sparing  the  then  hostile  capital  of  a  treacherous  enemy,  which  lay 
at  the  mercy  of  the  conquerors. 

It  may  be  convenient  to  despatch  in  continuity  what  remains  to 
be  stated  respecting  the  Peishwah,  though  anticipating  for  that 
purpose  events  and  the  order  of  time.  It  was  the  task  of  Gene- 
ral Smith  to  pursue  that  fugitive  prince,  through  all  the  windings 
and  doublings  of  a  warfare  which  shifted  its  ground  a  thousand 
times;  to  overthrow  his  collected  force  a  second  time  in  a  pitched 
battle;  and  in  that  battle  to  rescue  from  his  power  the  Rajah  of 
Sattarah,  descendant  of  the  ancient  sovereigns,  and,  by  just  title, 
the  real  head — of  the  Mahratta  empire.  Of  that  empire  the 
Peishwah  was  originally  the  first  executive  minister.  As  hap- 
pens frequently  in  Oriental  sovereignties,  the  legitimate  monarchy 
had  for  some  time  sunk  into  a  mere  name;  and  in  that  name  the 
Peishwahs  had  now  for  six  generations  exercised  the  supreme  au- 
thority, keeping  during  the  same  period  the  successive  hereditary 
sovereigns  in  confinement.  To  seize  the  person  of  the  Rajah  of 
Sattarah,  in  the  fort  of  that  name,  in  which  he  had  long  been  im- 
mured, was  the  first  object  of  the  Peishwah  in  his  flight  from 
Poonah;  lest,  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  British,  the  restitution 
of  that  sovereign  to  his  state  should  lead  to  the  final  extinction  of 
the  Peishwah's  office  and  power.  To  defeat  this  precaution  was 
the  effect  of  General  Smith's  victories;  and  it  was  no  small  reward 
of  his  exertions  to  be  the  instrument  of  such  a  restoration.  Amid 
the  rapid  revolutions  and  fluctuating  dynasties  of  the  East,  it  is 
not  always  that  European  policy  can  satisfy  itself  as  to  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  course  which  circumstances  or  engagements  may 
compel  it  to  pursue  or  to  sanction.  But  it  is  no  unsatisfactory 
consequence  of  a  faithless  and  unprovoked  attack  upon  the  British 
power,  that  a  lawful  sovereign  has  been  replaced  on  the  throne  of 
his  ancestors,  by  the  same  British  army  which  drove  a  perfidious 
aggressor  from  his  capital,  and  finally  reduced  him  from  a  wan- 
derer to  a  captive. 

What  has  been  stated  of  the  unexpected  hostility  of  the  Peish- 
wah, applies,  in  its  general  outline,  and  with  change  only  of  names 
and  places,  to  the  Rajah  of  Berar.  At  Nagpore,  as  at  Poonah,  an 
attack  was  suddenly  made  on  the  British  Residency,  while  the  at- 
tention of  the  Governor-General  was  supposed  to  be  exclusively 
occupied  with  the  Pindarry  war.     A  similar  resistance  was  sue- 


280  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS 

cessfully  opposed  to  this  attack  by  the  resident,  Mr.  Jenkins;  who 
affords  another  instance  of  the  happy  union  of  military  qualifica- 
tions with  diplomatic  skill;  and  whose  courage  and  constancy  had 
been  heretofore  displayed  under  very  trying  circumstances,  when, 
after  the  former  Mahratta  war,  he  held  the  office  of  resident  at 
the  Court  of  Scindia.  The  few  troops  stationed  at  Nagpore,  un- 
der Lieutenant-Colonel  Scott,  made  a  gallant  stand  against  the  su- 
perior numbers  of  the  enemy — (a  superiority  sufficient  to  sur- 
round and  overpower  the  British  force,  even  if  the  attack  had 
been  foreseen) — instances  of  individual  heroism  displayed  on  this 
occasion  are  deservedly  recorded  in  our  military  annals.  It  re- 
mained for  the  skill  and  valour  of  Brigadier-General  Doveton  to 
follow  up  the  advantages  thus  obtained;  and  to  complete  the  over- 
throw of  a  Power  which  had  acted  with  such  perfidious  violence. 
The  hostility  of  Nagpore  was  a  still  greater  surprise  than  that  of 
Poonah.  The  result  in  both  cases  was  the  same.  The  Peishwah 
is  consigned  to  a  secure  though  mitigated  captivity;  the  Rajah  of 
Berar  continues  still  a  fugitive,  but  so  reduced  and  deserted,  that 
although  I  cannot  aver  that  a  renewal  of  hostilities  by  him  is  al- 
together impossible,  I  trust  that  they  cannot  be  renewed  in  a  shape 
likely  to  give  the  Governor-General  much  trouble  or  uneasiness. 

Neither  had  these  distant  and  unforeseen  occurrences  the  effect, 
which  was  probably  anticipated  by  the  Mahrattas,  of  calling  off 
the  attention  of  the  Bengal  Government  from  the  original  object 
of  their  military  preparations — the  Pindarries.  Within  three 
months  after  the  opening  of  the  campaign,  this  formidable  horde 
had  ceased  to  exist  as  a  body.  Surrounded  and  driven,  as  if  into  a 
net,  between  the  converging  forces  of  the  British  Presidencies, 
repelled  on  one  side  from  the  frontiers  of  the  Company's  terri- 
tories, and  pressed  on  the  other  against  the  frontiers  of  Scindia 
and  Holkar  (Scindia's  territory  being  closed  against  them  by  that 
chieftain's  treaty  of  co-operation,  and  Holkar's  by  the  treaty  of 
peace  which  followed  the  battle  of  Maheidpore;)  cut  off  from 
their  accustomed  retreat  across  the  Nerbudda,  into  the  territories 
of  Poonah  or  Nagpore,  and  unable,  as  is  their  nature,  to  make  head 
against  a  regular  army  in  the  field,  they  gradually  melted  away, 
dispersed,  concealed,  or  surrendered  themselves;  their  families, 
their  treasured  plunder,  their  fortresses,  fell  into  our  hands;  and 
that  association  of  freebooters  may,  I  hope,  be  said  to  be  extir- 
pated, not,  indeed,  in  their  persons,  but  in  purpose  and  in  name. 

Of  such  complicated  hostilities,  covering  an  extent  of  country 
before  which  the  dimensions  of  an  European  campaign  shrink  in 
comparison,  it  is,  as  I  have  said,  quite  impossible  for  me  to  at- 
tempt any  thing  like  a  detailed  exposition.  Among  feats  of  prow- 
ess and  deeds  of  gallantry  performed  contemporaneously  in  scenes 
of  action  far  removed  from  each  other,  but  conducing  alike  to 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  281 

one  great  end,  I  feel  totally  unable  to  thread  the  mazes  of  victory, 
and  to  select  instances  for  minute  specification  and  particular 
praise,  either  with  justice  to  the  British  troops,  or  with  satisfac- 
tion to  my  own  sense  of  their  merits.  The  names  of  the  leaders 
and  of  the  actors  in  these  distinguished  scenes  must  be  fresh  in 
the  recollection  of  those  who  have  perused  the  reports  of  the  cam- 
paign; and  I  fear  that  if  I  were  to  attempt  a  catalogue,  I  might, 
from  inadvertence  (though  not  from  partiality,)  leave  many  well 
deserving  of  praise  unnamed.  In  every  instance  the  valour  of  the 
British  troops  has  been  eminently  conspicuous.  And  when  I  say 
of  the  British  troops,  let  me  guard  the  House  against  any  such  er- 
roneous impression  as  that  the  contest  was  one  between  tried  and 
valiant  British  soldiers  on  the  one  side,  and  feeble  and  unwarlike 
natives  on  the  other.  Let  it  not  be  considered  as  an  unequal  con- 
flict of  European  valour  with  untaught  Indian  courage:  for  out  of 
about  90,000  troops,  whom  Lord  Hastings  brought  into  the  field, 
10,000  only,  or  thereabouts,  were  British;  the  remainder  were  the 
native  forces  of  the  East  India  Company,  trained,  it  is  true,  by  Eu- 
ropean officers,  and  proving  by  their  obedience,  their  courage,  their 
perseverance,  their  endurance,  that  in  discipline  and  in  achieve- 
ments they  were  capable  of  rivalling  their  British  instructers. 

In  doing  justice  to  the  bravery  of  the  native  troops,  I  must  not 
overlook  another  virtue — their  fidelity.  Many  of  the  Bombay 
army  had  been  recruited  in  the  territories  of  the  Peishwah;  their 
property,  their  friends,  their  relatives,  all  that  was  valuable  and 
dear  to  them,  were  still  in  that  prince's  power.  Previously  to  the 
commencement  of  hostilities,  the  Peishwah  had  spared  no  pains 
to  seduce  and  corrupt  these  troops — he  abstained  from  no  threats 
to  force  them  from  their  allegiance — but  his  utmost  arts  were  vain. 
The  native  officers  and  soldiers  came  to  their  British  commanders 
with  the  proofs  of  these  temptations  in  their  hands,  and  renewed 
the  pledges  of  their  attachment.  One  man — a  non-commissioned 
officer — brought  to  his  captain  the  sum  of  5,000  rupees,  which 
had  been  presented  to  him  by  the  Peishwah  in  person,  as  an  ear- 
nest of  reward  for  desertion.*  The  vengeance  denounced  by  the 
Peishwah  was  not  an  unmeaning  menace.  It  did  in  many  in- 
stances fall  heavily  on  the  relatives  of  those  who  resisted  his 
threats  and  his  entreaties;  but  the  effect  was  rather  to  exasperate 
than  to  repress  their  ardour  in  the  service  to  which  they  had 
sworn  to  adhere. 

This  combined  courage  and  attachment  were  never  more  con- 
spicuous than  on  one  occasion,  which  I  will  take  the  liberty  to 
particularize,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  a  just  tribute  as  well  to  the 

*  The  name  of  this  man — Shieck  Houssein — however  unmusical  to  European 
ears,  deserves  to  be  recorded. 

38  z* 


282  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS 

native  troops,  as  to  the  talents  of  an  officer  commanding  them.  It 
is  an  instance  which  I  may  select  without  invidiousness,  as  the 
rank  of  the  officer  does  not  allow  of  his  name  being  mentioned  in 
a  vote  of  thanks. 

A  body  of  between  eight  and  nine  hundred  men,  all  natives 
except  the  artillery  (the  proportion  of  which  to  a  force  of  this 
strength  many  gentlemen  present  can  estimate  more  correctly 
than  myself,)  was  on  its  march  from  a  distant  part  of  the  Peish- 
wah's  territories  to  Poonah,  soon  after  the  denunciation  of  hostili- 
ties, and  unexpectedly  found  itself  in  presence  of  the  whole  Mah- 
ratta  army.  What  was  the  exact  amount  of  the  Peishwah's  force 
I  am  not  able  to  state  with  precision,  but  the  cavalry  alone  was 
not  less  than  20,000.  The  small  band  which  I  have  described, 
hemmed  in  on  all  sides  by  this  overwhelming  superiority  of  num- 
bers, maintained  through  a  long  day  an  obstinate  and  victorious 
resistance;  victorious,  for  they  repelled  on  every  point  the  furious 
attacks  of  the  enemy.  The  chief  suffering  of  which  they  com- 
plained during  this  singular  and  most  unequal  contest,  was  the  in- 
tolerable thirst  which  they  could  not  procure  the  means  of  slaking 
until  the  action  was  over.  In  the  end  they  not  only  secured  an 
unmolested  retreat,  but  they  carried  off  their  wounded.  In  such 
a  waste  and  wilderness  of  space  and  of  glories,  distracting  the 
sight  and  perplexing  the  judgment,  it  is  satisfactory  thus  to  select 
some  small  insulated  field  of  action,  which  one  can  comprehend 
at  a  single  glance,  and  of  which  (as  of  some  green  and  sunny  spot 
in  a  far-stretching  and  diversified  landscape)  one  can  catch  and 
delineate  all  the  characteristic  features. 

From  this  one  small  achievement — small  as  to  extent,  but 
mighty  with  reference  to  the  qualities  displayed  in  it,  the  spirit 
which  pervaded  and  animated  the  whole  Indian  army  may  be  in- 
ferred. The  officer  who  commanded  this  gallant  little  force  was 
Captain  Staunton;  his  rank  does  not  entitle  him  to  be  recorded  in 
our  votes,  but  the  House  will  be  glad  to  learn  that  his  merits  and 
services  have  not  been  overlooked  by  his  immediate  employers 
the  Court  of  Directors. 

To  sum  up  the  military  results  of  the  whole  campaign  in  a 
few  words: — Within  the  short  period  of  six  months,  between  No- 
vember and  June,  eight-and-twenty  actions  were  fought  in  the 
field,  differing  from  each  other  in  magnitude,  but  all  exhibiting  in 
unvaried  splendour  the  character  of  our  Indian  army.  One  hun- 
dred and  twenty  forts — many  of  them  scarcely  accessible,  some 
deemed  impregnable  either  by  force  or  skill — fell  to  that  army  by 
surrender,  by  siege,  or  by  storm.  To  give  some  notion  of  the  ex- 
tent of  country  over  which  these  actions  were  distributed,  the  dis- 
tance between  the  most  northern  and  most  southern  of  the  cap- 
tured fortresses  is  not  less  than  seven  hundred  miles. 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  283 

At  the  southern  extremity  of  this  long  line  of  operations,  and 
in  a  part  of  the  campaign  carried  on  in  a  district  far  from  public 
gaze  and  without  the  opportunities  of  early  and  especial  notice, 
was  employed  a  man,  whose  name  I  should  indeed  have  been 
sorry  to  have  passed  over  in  silence.  I  allude  to  Colonel  Thomas 
Munro;  a  gentleman  of  whose  rare  qualifications  the  late  House 
of  Commons  had  opportunities  of  judging  when  he  was  examined 
at  their  bar  on  the  renewal  of  the  East  India  Company's  Charter; 
and  than  whom  Europe  never  produced  a  more  accomplished 
statesman,  nor  India,  fertile  as  it  is  in  heroes,  a  more  skilful  sol- 
dier. This  gentleman,  whose  occupations  for  some  years  past 
have  been  rather  of  a  civil  and  administrative  than  a  military  na- 
ture, was  called,  early  in  the  war,  to  exercise  abilities,  which 
though  dormant,  had  not  rusted  from  disuse.  He  went  into  the 
field  with  not  more  than  five  or  six  hundred  men,  of  whom  a  very 
small  proportion  were  Europeans;  and  marched  into  the  Mahratta 
territories  to  take  possession  of  the  country  which  had  been  ceded 
to  us  by  the  treaty  of  Poonah.  The  population  which  he  sub- 
dued by  arms,  he  managed  with  such  address,  equity,  and  wis- 
dom, that  he  established  an  empire  over  their  hearts  and  feelings. 
Nine  forts  were  surrendered  to  him  or  taken  by  assault  on  his 
way;  and  at  the  end  of  a  silent  and  scarcely  observed  progress, 
he  emerged  from  a  territory  heretofore  hostile  to  the  British  in- 
terest, with  an  accession  instead  of  a  diminution  of  force,  leaving 
every  thing  secure  and  tranquil  behind  him.  This  result  speaks 
more  than  could  be  told  by  any  minute  and  extended  com- 
mentary. 

This,  however,  Sir,  (in  order  that  I  may  keep  my  word  with 
the  House)  is  the  last  episode  in  which  I  shall  indulge.  It  re- 
mains only  to  describe  briefly  the  general  state  in  which  our  af- 
fairs were  placed  at  the  end  of  the  campaign.  The  Peishwah 
and  the  Rajah  of  Nagpore  I  have  already  traced  from  their  un- 
provoked hostility  to  their  merited  chastisement.  The  Pindarries, 
the  original  cause  and  object  of  the  war,  are  gone.  Of  the  Powers 
which  had  a  natural  interest  to  side  with  the  Pindarries,  Meer 
Khan,  is  reduced  to  his  original  comparative  insignificance;  Hol- 
kar  has  paid  the  penalty  of  his  hostility  by  the  sacrifice  of  a  large 
portion  of  his  dominions;  and  the  most  formidable  and  most  im- 
portant of  all,  Scindia,  having  been  prevented  by  wise  manage- 
ment from  taking  that  course  which  would  justly  have  placed 
him  amongst  the  victims  of  our  vengeance,  remains,  and  long 
may  he  remain,  an  independent  sovereign.  Long  may  he  remain 
so! — because,  anxious  as  I  am  for  the  prosperity  and  grandeur 
of  our  Indian  empire,  I  confess  I  look  at  its  indefinite  extension 
with  awe.  I  earnestly  wish  that  it  may  be  possible  for  us  to  re- 
main stationary  where  we  are;  and   that  what  still  exists  of  sub- 


284  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS 

slantive  and  independent  power  in  India,  may  stand  untouched 
and  unimpaired.  But  this  consummation,  however  much  it  may- 
be desired,  depends  (as  I  have  said)  not  on  ourselves  alone.  Ag- 
gression must  be  repelled,  and  perfidy  must  be  visited  with  its 
just  reward.  And  while  I  join  with  the  thinking  part  of  the 
country  in  deprecating  advance, — who  shall  say  that  there  is 
safety  for  such  a  Power  as  ours,  in  retrogradation  ? 

In  one  view,  the  accession  of  territory,  by  the  various  opera- 
tions of  which  I  have  attempted  to  give  some  outline,  is  as  im- 
portant as  the  war  was  justifiable  and  necessary.  In  the  begin- 
ning of  this  war  the  frontier  to  be  guarded  was  in  extent  not  less 
than  two  thousand  five  hundred  miles.  In  consequence  of  our 
late  successes,  and  of  the  tributary  alliances  which  have  grown 
out  of  them,  that  frontier  is  indeed  much  advanced;  but  in  pro- 
portion as  it  is  advanced  it  is  also  narrowed,  so  that  the  line  to- 
wards the  Indus  does  not  now  present  more  than  one-third  of  the 
extent  of  the  former  external  boundary. 

I  have  thus,  Sir,  endeavoured  to  bring  before  the  House  a  re- 
view of  the  late  campaign;  and  imperfect  as  I  am  aware  that  re- 
view must  necessarily  be,  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  omitted  any 
material  part  of  the  grounds  on  which  I  found  my  call  upon  the 
House  for  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Marquis  of  Hastings.  I  have 
said  enough  to  show  the  providence  with  which  he  called  forth, 
and  the  skill  with  which  he  arra}Ted,  the  forces  of  the  great  em- 
pire committed  to  his  charge;  the  wisdom  with  which  he  laid  his 
plans,  and  the  vigour  with  which  he  carried  them  into  execution. 
I  conclude  with  proposing  the  vote  to  Lord  Hastings  as  the  com- 
mander under  whose  auspices  these  successes  have  been  achieved; 
but  I  think  it  due  to  him  as  a  statesman  at  the  same  time  to  as- 
sure the  House  that  his  most  anxious  wish  is  to  improve  by  the 
arts  of  peace  the  provinces  acquired  in  war;  extending  the  pro- 
tection of  British  justice  to  every  part  of  our  widely-spread  do- 
minions; but  leaving  as  he  may  find  them  the  harmless  prejudices 
of  nations;  and  conforming  our  Government  to  native  habits  and 
institutions,  wherever  those  habits  and  institutions  are  not  at  vari- 
ance with  equity  and  reason:  convinced  that  the  British  rule  will 
be  stable  enough  throughout  India,  in  proportion  as  it  is  benefi- 

cient  and  beloved. [Mr.  Canning  here  read  the  vote  of  thanks 

to  the  Marquis  of  Hastings.] 

It  is  necessary  that  I  should  preface  the  second  resolution  with 
a  few  remarks  on  a  circumstance  in  the  conduct  of  a  gallant  gen- 
eral, who  has  greatly  signalized  himself  in  this  campaign. 

I  mentioned,  in  the  earlier  part  of  my  speech,  that  one  of  the 
first  results  of  Sir  Thomas  Hislop's  victory  over  Holkar,  was  an 
order  issued  by  that  chief,  and  intrusted  to  Sir  T.  Hislop,  for  the 
surrender  of  certain  fortresses  to  the  south  of  the  river  Nerbudda. 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  285 

Amongst  the  fortresses  so  ordered  to  be  surrendered  to  Sir  Thomas 
Hislop,  was  that  of  Talneir.     At  that  place  an  event  occurred 
which  is  related  in  the  papers  before  the  House,  and  the  particu- 
lars of  which  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  repeat.     In  those  pa- 
pers the  House  is  possessed  of  all  the  information  which  the  East 
India  Company  or  the  Government  have  received  on  this  subject. 
With  that  information  neither  the  East  India  Company  nor  the 
Government  are  satisfied.     The  only  course  which,  under  these 
circumstances,  could  be  adopted,  was  to  send  instructions  to  the 
Government  of  India  to  transmit  to  England  the  most  ample  in- 
formation, and  to  institute,  if  necessary,  the  most  minute  inquiry. 
I  am  very  far  from  admitting  that  because  there  has  been  an  omis- 
sion in  sending  home  satisfactory  documents,  we  are  therefore  to 
conclude  that  the  transaction  is  not  justifiable.     The  inference 
must  be  the  other  way: — First,  from  the  character  of  a  British 
officer;  secondly,  from  the  individual  character  of  this  officer, 
whom  (though  I  am  not  myself  acquainted  with  him,)  I  under- 
stand to  be  eminently  entitled  to  praise,  not  more  from  his  pro- 
fessional talents,  than  for  his  abhorrence  of  every  thing  cruel  or 
severe.     We  have  further,  in  support  of  this  inference,  two  sepa- 
rate approvals  of  his  conduct  by  the  Marquis  of  Hastings,  con- 
veyed in  the  most  unqualified  terms.     It  is  impossible  to  imagine 
any  interest  or  affection  that  could  have  induced  Lord  Hastings  to 
slur  over  a  transaction,  which  in  his  conscience  he  thought  de- 
serving of  blame.     I  say  this  the  more  confidently,  because  in- 
stances have  occurred  in  the  course  of  this  campaign  which  prove 
that,  however  anxious  Lord  Hastings  is  to  bestow  praise  where 
praise  is  merited,  he  knows  his  duty  too  well  to  withhold  blame 
from  those  who  have  justly  incurred  it.    Those  instances  it  would 
be  unfair  to  mention;  but  I  can  assure  the  House  that  such  are  in 
my  possession. 

When  the  despatch  which  contains  the  account  of  the  capture 
of  Talnier,  was  transmitted  in  the  military  department  of  the  of- 
ficial correspondence,  it  came  unaccompanied  with  any  civil  de- 
tails whatever.  I  felt  some  reluctance  in  making  the  bare  mili- 
tary statement  public:  but  I  thought  the  plain  course  to  pursue 
was,  to  deal  with  this  despatch  as  other  despatches  of  a  military 
nature  had  been  dealt  with;  looking  forward  confidently  to  the 
arrival  of  the  details  which  were  wanting  to  give  the  transaction 
its  true  colour. 

Those  gentlemen  who  take  an  interest  in  Indian  affairs  must 
know  how  uncertain  correspondence  is  with  that  part  of  the 
world.  There  have  been — there  still  are — great  chasms  in  the 
correspondence  respecting  the  late  campaign.  In  last  Saturday's 
Gazette,  is  an  account  of  occurrences  which  took  place  not  less 
than  a  year  and  a  half  ago:  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  Government 


886  VOTE  OF  THANKS  TO  MARQUIS  HASTINGS 

that  the  intelligence  of  them  did  not  arrive  sooner.  And  here  it 
may  possibly  be  expedient  for  me  to  state,  by  the  way,  why  des- 
patches, of  which  the  general  interest  is  gone  by,  are  nevertheless 
inserted  in  the  Gazette.  The  reason,  Sir,  is  this:  from  the  intense 
and  laudable  eagerness  with  which  military  honours  are  sought 
for,  it  is  necessary  that  those  services  by  which  such  honours  may 
be  merited,  should  be  publicly  recorded.  Public  record  being 
made — and  wisely — an  indispensable  condition  of  the  grant  of 
those  honours,  it  would  be  hard  to  run  the  risk  of  invalidating 
any  officer's  title  to  them  hereafter,  by  keeping  back  altogether 
the  notification  of  services,  the  official  report  of  which  might  have 
happened  to  be  delayed. 

To  return  to  Sir  Thomas  Hislop:  his  despatch  arrived  in  Au- 
gust; the  approbation  of  the  Marquis  of  Hastings,  though  dated 
only  a  fortnight  after  that  despatch,  did  not  arrive  till  the  27th  of 
November.  The  details  of  a  complete  justification  may  be  now 
on  their  way. 

In  this  imperfect  state  of  evidence  three  modes  of  proceeding 
presented  themselves  to  Government.  The  first  was,  to  withhold 
remuneration  altogether  from  the  services  of  the  Indian  army  till 
this  point  should  be  cleared  up:  but  no  man  who  knows  the  spirit 
and  temper  of  armies  in  general,  and  the  composition  of  the  In- 
dian army  in  particular,  would  recommend  a  course  so  ungrateful 
and  ungracious.  The  next  was  to  grant  to  other  deservers  the 
proper  honorary  rewards,  omitting  the  name  of  the  commander 
under  whom  the  most  considerable  victory  had  been  gained — the 
name  of  him  in  whose  praise  the  letters  from  India  were  lavish: 
but  such  an  exception  would  have  placed  on  his  character  a  stamp 
of  obloquy  too  deep  to  be  effaced  by  any  subsequent  atonement. 
The  last  course  was,  to  include  him  with  the  body  of  officers  to 
whom  military  honours  were  due;  still,  however,  expecting  and 
requiring  at  a  future  period  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  par- 
ticular part  of  his  conduct.  If  the  House  shall  be  of  opinion  that 
the  Executive  Government  have  not  judged  amiss  in  the  choice 
which  they  have  made  between  these  three  modes  of  proceeding, 
the  House  will,  perhaps,  so  far  countenance  and  concur  with  their 
decision  as  to  vote  its  thanks  for  military  service  to  Lieutenant- 
General  Sir  Thomas  Hislop,  in  common  with  his  brave  compeers 
in  glory;  and  to  be  contented  with  entering,  at  the  same  time,  a 
special  record  of  its  own  suspended  judgment  on  this  particular 
transaction. 

I  admit  the  reasonableness  of  such  a  record,  on  the  grounds 
which  I  have  stated;  though  I  feel  that,  standing  in  my  situation, 
it  would  hardly  be  becoming  in  me  to  propose  what  that  record 
shall  be.  To  join  it  with  the  vote  of  thanks  itself,  when  every 
end  can  be  obtained  by  a  separate  Resolution,  would  be  as  harsh 


AND  THE  BRITISH  ARMY  IN  INDIA.  287 

as  unnecessary:  unnecessary,  since  the  suspension  of  the  judgment 
of  the  House  may  be  sufficiently  marked  without  such  a  junction; 
— and  harsh,  because  the  vote  of  thanks  will  be  placed  on  the 
regimental  books,  and  read  in  front  of  every  military  line  in  In- 
dia. This,  I  am  ready  to  confess,  would  not  be  too  severe  a  course 
if  the  transaction  were  finally  to  be  imprinted  with  a  character, 
such  as,  I  trust,  it  never  can  assume:  but  what  would  be  the  feel- 
ings of  Sir  Thomas  Hislop  and  of  his  comrades,  if  such  a  censure 
were  sent  forth,  in  ignorance  here,  to  be  read  before  an  audience 
in  India  who  might  well  know  that  it  had  not  been  deserved? 

I  trust,  then,  that  the  House  will  allow  the  name  of  Sir  Thomas 
Hislop  to  stand  in  my  second  Resolution  of  Thanks,  without  any 
phrase  of  qualification;  and,  in  return,  if  any  gentleman  shall  pro- 
pose a  separate  Resolution  of  the  description  which  I  have  ven- 
tured to  suggest,  I  shall  think  that  by  assenting  to  such  Resolu- 
tion I  best  discharge  my  duty  to  the  House,  to  the  Indian  army, 
and  to  Sir  Thomas  Hislop  himself. 

The  Resolutions  were  agreed  to  without  a  division. 


288 


MR.  TIERNEY'S  MOTION  ON  THE 
STATE  OF  THE  NATION. 

MAY  18th,  1819. 

Mr.  Tierney  moved — "  That  this  House  will  resolve  itself  into  a  Commit- 
tee of  the  whole  House,  to  take  into  consideration  the  State  of  the  Nation." — 
The  arguments  adduced  in  Mr.  Tierney 's  motion,  are  replied  to  seriatim  in 
Mr.  Canning's  admirable  speech  on  this  occasion. 

Mr.  Canning  rose  and  said: — 

The  motion,  Sir,  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  as  fairly- 
explained  by  himself,  and  as  understood  by  almost  every  honour- 
able gentleman  who  has  taken  part  in  this  debate,  is,  to  call  upon 
the  House  to  exercise  one  of  its  highest  constitutional  functions — 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  character,  and  pass  a  verdict  on  the  con- 
duct, of  the  Ministers  of  the  Crown.  Some  attempts  have,  in- 
deed, been  made  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  to  diminish  the 
force  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  explanation,  and  to  de- 
tract from  his  just  admissions.  But  that  diminution  and  that  de- 
traction cannot  be  allowed  to  weigh  against  the  avowal  of  the 
honourable  mover;  who  puts  no  other  interpretation  on  his  own 
object  than  this — that  the  decision  of  the  House  this  night  in- 
volves the  fate  of  the  existing  Administration.  Lest  any  mistake 
arise  on  this  point — lest  any  honourable  members  should  be  un- 
wittingly led  to  adopt  a  measure  of  wrhich  they  do  not  mean  to 
approve — I  think  it  right  to  repeat,  on  my  own  part,  and  on  the  part 
of  my  colleagues,  what  has  been  most  candidly  and  distinctly  de- 
clared by  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  that  the  issue  of  the 
division  this  night,  if  affirmative  of  the  proposition  brought  for- 
ward by  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  will  pronounce  the  dis- 
solution of  the  Government  which  now  possesses  the  confidence 
of  the  Crown.  Do  I  mean  on  that  account  to  impute  any  blame 
or  any  improper  motive  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman  ?  No 
such  thing.  The  present  proceeding  is  an  acknowledged  and  con- 
stitutional mode  of  ascertaining  the  sense  of  Parliament  on  the 
conduct  of  the  Administration  of  the  country.  If  there  is  any 
unfairness  to  be  complained  of,  it  certainly  is  not  in  the  nature  of 
the  motion,  but  in  the  time  and  in  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  is  brought  forward. 

An  honourable  gentleman,  who  spoke  late  in  the  debate,  seems 
to  think  that  he  may  support  the  motion  without  passing  a  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  and  dismissal  on  His  Majesty's  Ministers. 
With  this  qualification  I,  Sir,  do  not  presume  to  find  fault:  but  I 


STATE  OF  THE  NATION.  289 

do  think  myself  entitled  to  desire  that  all  those  who  may  think 
with  the  honourable  gentleman  will  take  an  opportunity  of  dis- 
tinctly expressing  that  opinion,  lest,  by  their  votes,  if  unexplained, 
the  House  and  the  country — who  will  unquestionably  construe 
the  motion  according  to  the  general  understanding  of  it,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  right  honourable  mover's  own  exposition  of  its  in- 
tention and  effect — should  be  deceived  with  respect  to  the  object 
which  those  whose  votes  are  thus  qualified  have  in  view.  Ano- 
ther honourable  gentleman  fancies  he  sees  a  way  of  escaping  from 
the  difficulty,  by  distinguishing  between  his  general  approbation 
of  His  Majesty's  Ministers,  and  the  abhorrence  which  he  feels  for 
the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  in  consequence  of  the  London 
Docks  not  being  so  full  as  usual,  and  still  more  on  account  of 
the  dastardly  imbecility  with  which  my  right  honourable  friend 
has  recoiled  from  a  double  duty  upon  tallow"  Torn  as  his  agitated 
bosom  was  by  these  conflicting  sentiments — by  a  consciousness,  on 
the  one  hand,  of  the  obligations  which  he  owed  to  Ministers  for 
their  general  conduct,  and  his  indignation,  on  the  other,  at  these 
particular  and  reprehensible  backslidings  of  the  Finance  Minister, 
the  honourable  gentleman  declared  that  he  saw  no  means  of  eva- 
ding his  embarrassment,  but  by  voting  with  an  honourable  and 
learned  gentleman  (Mr.  C.  Wynn)  for  the  previous  question.  Un- 
happily, however,  even  this  mode  of  retreat  is  not  left  open  to 
him;  for  that  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  has  not  moved, 
nor  does  he  intend  to  move,  the  previous  question.  He  did,  in- 
deed, mention  such  a  question  as  moveable,  and  as  not  inapplica- 
ble to  the  motion  before  the  House;  but  after  propounding  the 
matter  gravely,  and  weighing  it  deliberately,  he  resolved  to  have 
nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  division,  but  to  go  home  to  bed.  If, 
therefore,  the  honourable  gentleman  is  deterimned  to  follow  the 
honourable  and  learned  gentleman's  suggestion,  he  must  follow 
him,  not  into  the  lobby,  but  to  his  chamber.  "  Misery,"  as  Trin- 
culo  says,  "  acquaints  a  man  with  strange  bedfellows;"  and  when 
the  honourable  gentleman  shall  be  reclined  on  the  same  pillow 
with  the  mover  of  the  imaginary  motion  which  he  is  so  anxious 
to  support,  they  may  condole  with  each  other  on  the  difficulties 
by  which  they  fancy  themselves  surrounded,  and  eventually,  per- 
haps, may  make  up  their  minds,  though  somewhat  too  late,  as  to 
the  vote  to  be  given  on  a  question  on  which,  of  all  questions  in 
the  world,  it  seems  most  easy  to  come  to  a  decisive  opinion. 

I  have  said  that  if  I  were  disposed  to  complain  of  any  thing  in 
the  right  honourable  gentleman's  motion,  it  would  be  only  of  the 
time  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it  is  brought  forward. 
But,  in  saying  this,  I  beg  to  be  understood  as  founding  my  objec- 
tion not  on  the  general  situation  of  the  country  and  of  the  world, 
but  merely  on  the  particular  state  of  public  business  in  Parliament. 
39  aa 


290  STATE  OF  THE  NATION. 

This  I  think  it  necessary  to  premise,  lest  my  observations  on  the 
proposition  and  speech  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  may 
be  misunderstood.  The  course  of  argument  which  has  been  pur- 
sued by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  is  this: — that  the  coun- 
try stands,  both  internally  and  externally,  in  a  situation  of  extraor- 
dinary difficulty  and  even  peril  ;  a  situation  demanding  all  the 
attention  which  the  most  able  and  experienced  minds  can  bestow 
upon  it.  I  am  very  ready  to  admit  that  the  internal  situation  of 
the  country  is  full  of  difficulties  ;  but  they  are  not  insurmounta- 
ble. There  is  nothing  in  that  situation  which  ought  to  lead  us  to 
despair.  I  admit  also  that  it  is  impossible  to  look  through  the 
world  without  perceiving  that  there  may  be  some  latent  and  not 
yet  unfolded  grounds  of  foreign  embarrassment,  some  distant 
chance  that  the  exertions  which  have  been  made  for  the 
establishment  and  preservation  of  general  tranquillity,  however 
strenuous  and  ardent,  may  be  frustrated  at  some  period,  more  or 
less  remote,  by  occurrences,  difficult  to  forsee,  and  not  possible 
to  be  guarded  against.  Who  will  undertake  to  say,  that  at  this 
very  moment  some  unperceived  danger  may  not  be  gathering 
over  the  country  ?  and  when  was  there  a  moment  in  the  history 
of  the  country  at  which  such  an  undertaking  could  be  confidently 
hazarded  ?  In  making  these  admissions,  therefore,  I  beg  to  be 
understood  as  not  alluding  to  any  specific  circumstances  of  diffi- 
culty or  danger  ;  but  merely  as  not  opposing  to  the  vague  suppo- 
sitions of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  any  assurance  that  might 
be  understood  as  intended  to  deprecate  discussion,  or  to  divest  the 
right  honourable  gentleman's  motion  of  the  character  and  import- 
ance which  he  has  assigned  to  it.  Whatever  may  be  the  grounds, 
or  whatever  the  amount  of  the  apprehensions  reasonably  growing 
out  of  the  present  situation  of  affairs — in  one  thing  I  most  cordi- 
ally agree  with  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  that  nothing  could 
more  effectually  tend  to  preserve  the  tranquillity  now  so  happily 
prevailing  throughout  the  world,  than  an  impression  that  we 
should  not  shrink  from  war  in  case  of  necessity.  To  this  end  it  is 
unquestionably  indispensable  that  our  financial  system  should  be 
sound.  And  to  make  it  so,  it  is  no  doubt  necessary  to  purge  it 
of  its  defects,  to  repair  its  infirmities,  and,  above  all  things,  to  give 
such  an  ample  and  undisguised  explanation  of  its  real  condi- 
tion, as  may  render  it  perfectly  clear  and  intelligible,  not  only  to 
this  country,  but  to  the  world.  All  this  is  as  strongly  felt  by  His 
Majesty's  Government  as  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  ;  and 
the  only  matter  of  which  they  have  a  right  to  complain  in  respect 
to  the  present  motion,  is  that  itis  brought  forward  prematurely,  and, 
if  not  with  the  purpose,  certainly  with  the  effect,  of  intercepting 
and  anticipating  that  exposition  of  the  whole  of  our  system  of 
finance,  which  it  is  the  undoubted  duty  of  the  Ministers  to  bring 


STATE  OF  THE  NATION.  291 

forward,  and  which  it  is  notorious  that  they  will,  in  the  course  of 
a  few  days,  submit  to  the  consideration  of  Parliament.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  has  so  timed  his  motion  as  to  enable  himself, 
whenever  this  exposition  shall  be  made,  to  exclaim,  "  Aye,  this 
flows  from  my  motion  ;  just  as  the  inquiry  into  the  affairs  of  the 
Bank  was  the  consequunce  of  my  former  notice."  As  to  the  ori- 
gin of  the  inquiry  into  the  affairs  of  the  Bank,  that  question  was 
disposed  of  at  the  time,  and  I  will  not  now  weary  the  attention  of  the 
House  by  re-arguing  it  :  but  as  to  the  financial  statement,  I  can 
assure  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  that  nothing  but  the  obvious 
necessity  of  first  completing  the  investigation  of  the  committee  on 
the  Bank,  and  of  determining  the  character  of  the  future  currency 
of  the  country,  before  any  solid  and  permanent  system  of  finance 
could  be  established,  has  prevented  my  right  honourable  friend,  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  from  proposing  to  the  House  the 
plan  of  finance  which  has  been  prepared,  not  merely  for  the  pre- 
sent year,  but  for  the  whole  period  of  peace,  whatever  may  be  its 
duration.  My  single  objection,  therefore,  to  the  fairness  of  the 
motion  is,  that  it  endeavours  to  take  from  Ministers  the  initiative 
which  belongs  to  them  on  this  momentous  subject  ;  on  which  (as 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  himself  most  justly  argues)  the 
whole  view  of  the  state  of  the  country,  external  as  well  as  inter- 
nal, depends. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  has,  however,  avoided  entering 
into  any  examination  of  the  labours  of  the  Secret  Committee,  or 
into  the  much  agitated  question  respecting  the  currency,  or  into 
the  details  of  our  financial  situation.  In  this  abstinence  I  will  im- 
itate him  :  and  having  merely  protested  against  the  implication, 
thus  unfairly  conveyed  in  the  motion,  that  the  right  honourable 
gentleman's  interference  (however  great  his  talents  in  that  line,  or 
however  laudable  the  application  with  which  he  has  directed  them 
to  that  object)  was  necessary  to  obtain  for  the  House  and  for  the 
country  a  prompt  and  full  examination  of  our  financial  wants  and 
means,  I  will  proceed  to  follow  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
through  the  wider  range  and  more  general  topics  of  his  speech. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  appears  to  think  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  alleged  exhaustion  of  our  finances,  opportunities 
have  been  lost  of  asserting  the  interests  and  vindicating  the  honour 
of  the  country.  On  this  point  the  right  honourable  gentleman  did 
not  indeed  express  himself  in  very  direct  terms.  He  was  con- 
tented to  "  just  hint  a  fault  and  hesitate  dislike."  He  just  made 
the  allusion,  and  left  it  to  work  its  own  impression.  He  said  that 
two  British  subjects  had  been  murdered  under  the  forms  of  justice 
by  a  general  of  the  United  States.  The  act  was  not  characterized 
by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  in  terms  of  too  strong  abhor- 
rence ;  but  for  what  purpose  was  it  thus  alluded  to  in  a  motion 


892  STATE   OF   THE  NATION. 

for  a  Committee  to  inquire  into  the  State  of  the  Nation,  unless  for 
that  of  insinuating,  that  there  had  been  something  in  the  forbear- 
ance of  the  British  Government  which  could  not  be  accounted  for 
but  by  a  consciousness  of  absolute  impotence  ?  And  yet  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  himself  confessed  his  doubts  whether, by  the 
law  of  nations,  the  interference  of  the  British  Government  on 
this  occasion  would  have  been  justifiable.  The  right  honorable 
gentleman's  doubts  are  well  founded.  His  Majesty's  Ministers 
have  not  been  the  less  diligent  or  the  less  anxious  in  their  deliber- 
ations and  researches,  to  ascertain  whether,  consistently  with  the 
law  of  nations,  they  could  interfere,  than  if  they  had  (as  was  the 
first  natural  impulse  in  every  British  bosom)  made  this  country 
and  America  ring  from  one  end  to  the  other,  with  cries  for  re- 
dress. Let  it  not  be  imputed  to  His  Majesty's  Ministers  that 
they  alone,  of  all  Englishmen,  of  all  mankind,  felt  not  the  indig- 
nation at  the  act  in  question  which  it  justly  merited  ;  that  the 
moral  guilt  and  baseness  of  that  atrocious  proceeding  appeared  to 
them  in  any  other  light  than  to  the  plain  understanding  of  every 
right-minded  individual  ;  or  that  it  would  not  have  been  easier,  ten 
thousand  times  more  easy  as  well  as  more  grateful,  to  have  fol- 
lowed at  once  where  their  feelings  led  the  way,  than  to  have  curb- 
ed, and  questioned,  and  disciplined  those  feelings  by  a  reference 
to  their  duties  and  obligations.  But  if  the  unhappy  men  who 
were  the  victims  of  this  inhuman  outrage,  placed  themselves  by 
their  own  act  out  of  the  protection  of  their  Government;  if  there  was 
no  right  of  interfering  in  their  behalf,  which  would  have  justified 
an  appeal  to  the  last  extremity,  by  which  atonement,  if  not  grant- 
ed on  a  first  requisition,  must  be  enforced  ;  if  therefore  remon- 
strances disregarded  would  not  have  justified  resentment  ;  if  to 
have  called  for  reparation  would  have  been  to  enter  upon  a  course 
from  which,  when  unsatisfied,  we  should  have  had  nothing  to  do 
but  to  retire  ;  surely  it  will  be  felt  that  the  dignity  of  the  country 
would  have  been  ill  consulted  by  a  proceeding  at  once  fruitless 
and  humiliating:  and  surely  credit  may  be  given  to  us  for  hav- 
ing discharged — reluctantly  discharged — our  duty  to  our  coun- 
try as  Ministers,  without  imputing  to  us  an  insensibility  which 
would  have  disgraced  us  as  men. 

Again,  as  to  the  cession  of  the  Floridas  by  Spain  to  the  United 
States,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  spoke,  not  as  if  he  himself 
thought,  but  as  if  it  might  be  thought  by  some  one,  that  the  Brit- 
ish Government  ought  to  have  interfered  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting that  cession.  Unquestionably  it  would  have  been  more 
to  the  interests  of  this  country  that  the  Floridas  should  have 
remained  in  the  possession  of  Spain.  But  by  what  right,  by 
what  construction  of  the  law  of  nations,  independently  of  the 
specific   stipulations  of  particular  treaties  (and  none  such  were 


STATE   01'    THE  NATION.  293 

in  this  case  in  operation,)  could  the  British  Government  inter- 
fere to  prevent  a  transfer  of  territory  between  independent  Pow- 
ers;  unless  it  had  been  prepared  to   make  common  cause  with 
the  nation  of  whom  the  cession  was  required?    It  is,  I  believe, 
pretty  generally  admitted  on  all  sides,  that  Ministers  have  rightly 
abstained  from  any  interference  in  this  matter;  but  if  no  blame  is 
imputed  to  them,  why  was  the  subject  introduced  into  the  right 
honourable  gentleman's  speech,  in  a  manner  which  either  meant 
nothing,  or  meant  that  there  might  be  something  to  rind  fault 
with?   On  another  point,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  was  less 
equivocal.      He  clearly  did  mean  to  impute  blame  to  Ministers 
for  not  having  openly  espoused  the  cause  of  the  South  American 
provinces.     When  I  recollect,  Sir,  all  that  has  been  so  often  de- 
claimed in  the  House  on  the  advantages  of  peace,  on  the  dangers 
of  war,  on  the  impropriety  of  interfering  in  the  concerns  of  for- 
eign nations — when  I  recollect  all  those  brilliant  common  places 
with  which  the  ears  of  every  honourable  member  present  must 
still  be  ringing,  I  confess  my  astonishment  at  the  tone  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman's  remarks  on  the  subject  of  Spanish  South 
America.    I  am  astonished  at  the  suggestion,  coming  from  a  states- 
man not  liable  to  be  misled  by  the  ebullition  of  any  very  roman- 
tic or  fanatical  spirit,  that  the  Government  of  this  country  ought 
to  have  committed  its  honour  and  resources  in  a  new,  and  what  I 
must  call  unnecessary  war  against  Spain,  for  the  purpose  of  fo- 
menting the  struggle  between  her  and  her  colonies.    I  have  heard 
of  many  wars  rashly  undertaken — I  have  heard  of  wars  of  inter- 
est, wars  of  temper,  wars  of  honour,  and  wars  of  speculation;  but 
I  never  yet  heard  of  so  mad  a  proposition  as  that  the  cause  of  the 
insurgents  in  South  America  (I  do  not  mean  by  the  term  "  insur- 
gents," to  give  any  opinion  as  to  the  merits  of  the  cause)  should 
be  taken  under  the  protection  of  Great  Britain.     Putting  out  of 
question  the  moral  right  of  such  an  interposition,  have  any  of 
these  sanguine  enterprizers  who  contend  for  alliance  with  the  in- 
surgents, condescended  to  calculate  the  magnitude  of  the  under- 
taking— the  distance — the  risk — the  cost — and  that  to  an  "  ex- 
hausted country  ?"  No,  the  British  Government  had  but  one  wise, 
as  but  one  honest  course  to  pursue  in  this  contest.    They  have  not 
interfered  to  assist  either  party,  but  they  have  repeatedly  offered 
their  good  offices  with  a  view  to  reconcilement  through  an  impar- 
tial mediation.     That  mediation  has  unhappily  proved   hopeless, 
nor  was  it  our  business  to  obtrude  it  undesired:  nor  would  we,  nor 
ought  we  to  undertake  to  give  effect  to  it,  on  condition  of  enfor- 
cing it  on  either  side  by  arms.     Amicable  intercourse  has  been 
kept  up  with  every  part  of  South  America  to  which  our  flag  has 
access;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  a  strong  sense  is  entertained 
of  the  pacific  and  impartial  dispositions  of  England  throughout 

AA* 


294  STATE   OF   THE  NATION. 

the  continent  of  South  America,  unless  where  her  character  has 
been  maligned,  and  her  motives  distorted,  for  purposes  of  lo- 
cal delusion,  or  of  personal  interest.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
armaments  fitted  out  from  this  country  in  aid  of  the  South  Amer- 
icans have  undoubtedly  created  (and  have  been  most  diligently 
and  unfairly  employed  to  create)  an  impression  that  the  wishes 
and  opinions  of  the  British  Government  were  embarked  with  the 
adventurers  of  which  those  armaments  were  composed.  Such  a 
supposition  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  neutrality  professed 
and  observed  by  the  British  Government,  and  may  require  con- 
tradiction; but  it  is  unquestionably  a  conclusive  answer  to  the  im- 
putation of  partiality  against  the  South  Americans.  The  wisdom, 
as  well  as  the  good  faith  of  this  system  of  neutrality,  must,  I 
think,  be  obvious  to  every  one,  except  to  a  race  of  petty  politi- 
cians (I  certainly  do  not  mean  to  include  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  in  this  description,)  who  hold  that  the  present  is  a  fine 
opportunity  for  retaliating  upon  Spain,  the  conduct  which  we  ex- 
perienced from  her  during  the  contest  with  our  North  American 
colonies.  Yes,  we  have  retaliated;  but  I  trust  on  a  more  just,  at 
least  a  more  Christian  principle.  Our  retaliation  has  been  to  en- 
deavour, by  mediation,  to  heal  the  wounds  which  discord  had  in- 
flicted on  both  parties  in  the  quarrel.  Would  to  God  that  our  of- 
fers had  been  accepted.  Would  to  God  that  the  parties  who  were 
the  objects  of  it  had  yielded  to  the  suggestions  of  friendship  and 
sound  prudence;  and  that  instead  of  tearing  each  other  to  pieces 
with  a  waste  of  blood,  such  as  few  wars  have  occcasioned,  some 
compromise  could  have  been  effected,  favourable  at  once  to  ra- 
tional principles  of  liberty,  and  to  the  peace  of  the  old  world  and 
the  new.  In  one  respect,  His  Majesty's  Ministers  are  certainly 
guilty  of  the  charges  brought  against  them.  In  their  transactions 
with  South  America,  they  have  abstained  from  endeavouring,  by 
a  commercial  treaty,  to  turn  the  troubles  and  distresses  of  a  strug- 
gling people  to  the  advantage  of  this  country.  The  assistance 
which  they  did  not  think  it  right  to  grant,  they  would  not  be 
tempted  to  sell;  and  so  far  have  they  carried  their  forbearance  in 
this  particular,  that  in  all  their  repeated  offers  of  mediation,  while 
they  have  uniformly  stated  freedom  of  trade  as  one  of  the  condi- 
tions which  justice  would  stipulate  for  the  colonies,  they  have  as 
uniformly  disclaimed  for  Great  Britain  any  separate  or  partial 
commercial  preference.  Let  peace  be  established,  let  trade  be 
open— competition,  enterprize,  capital,  would  ensure  her  due  share 
of  advantage  to  this  country. 

These,  I  think,  are  all  the  questions  of  external  policy  to  which 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  adverted,  with  the  exception 
of  those  general  reflections  on  the  state  of  Europe,  which  have 


STATE  OF  THE  NATION.  295 

been  already  satisfactorily  noticed  by  my  noble  friend,  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

To  return  to  internal  matters.  The  manner  in  which  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  brought  forward  his  motion,  rendered  it  al- 
most impossible  wholly  to  preclude  discussion  on  the  affairs  of  the 
Bank,  the  currency,  and  the  finances.  Nor  has  the  caution  which 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  himself  observed  on  that  subject, 
been  imitated  by  those  who  followed  him.  To  their  remarks, 
however,  I  do  not  mean  at  present  to  reply.  Nor  shall  I  dwell 
particularly  on  the  more  unimportant  charges  which  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  has  copiously  flung  out  against  His  Majes- 
ty's Ministers,  but  shall  confine  myself  to  the  pervading  topic  of 
his  speech.  According  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  not 
only  are  His  Majesty's  Ministers,  taken  as  a  whole,  incompetent 
to  bring  the  resources  of  the  empire  into  full  and  healthy  play, 
whether  in  respect  to  its  internal  or  external  polity;  but  their  de- 
ficiency is  rendered  still  more  deficient,  and  their  imbecility  more 
weak,  by  divisions  among  themselves:  there  is  no  point  of  union 
among  them,  no  common  principle  of  action.  The  country 
ought  therefore  to  look  to  an  administration  all  strength — all  unan- 
imity— the  members  of  which  should  not  have  taken  different 
sides  on  any  question  of  great  political  interest.  But  where  is 
this  perfect  administration  to  be  found?  Not  certainly  in  the  per- 
sons of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  and  his  friends  around 
him.  Be  it  remembered,  that  it  is  not  I  who  allege  this  matter 
of  accusation.  But  if  it  be  indeed  absolutely  indispensable  for 
the  conducting  affairs  wisely  and  steadily,  wTith  prudence  and  de- 
cision, that  there  should  be  no  difference  on  any  important  subject 
among  the  members  of  an  administration;  and  if  it  shall  farther 
appear  that  such  differences  would  nevertheless  exist  under  any 
possible  administration  that  could  be  formed  out  of  the  materials 
now  available  in  this  country,  the  result,  I  fear,  will  be  not  only 
that  the  present  Ministers  cannot  go  on,  but  that  the  country  must 
altogether  despair  of  an  efficient  and  serviceable  administration. 
The  truth,  however,  I  believe  to  be,  that  those  theorists  tax  hu- 
man nature  too  high,  who  require,  among  any  number  of  men 
capable  of  forming  an  opinion  for  themselves,  an  undeviating 
unanimity  of  opinion  upon  every  one  of  the  various  and  compli- 
cated questions  that  can  occur  in  the  management  of  the  affairs  of 
this  extended  and  diversified  community.  An  agreement  in  gen- 
eral principles,  and  a  concurrence  in  the  details  of  practical  ad- 
ministration, are  undoubtedly  necessary  to  give  consistency  to 
councils,  and  unity  to  action.  But  upon  points  either  purely 
speculative,  or  of  comparative  unimportance  in  practice,  there 
may  be — there  must  be — occasionally,  such  differences  among  in- 
telligent and  instructed  minds,  as  may  render  necessary  mutual 


296  STATE  OF  THE  NATION. 

concessions  for  the  sake  of  the  public  service.  Measures  must 
sometimes  be  shaped  and  modified  by  the  comparison  and  partial 
compromise  of  different  opinions.  If  the  result  be  to  present  for 
practical  adoption,  and  to  support  with  frankness,  strength,  and 
union,  measures  of  sound  policy,  any  harshness  of  criticism  or  se- 
verity of  examination  into  the  process  by  which  such  consent  may 
have  been  obtained,  would  be  utterly  misplaced — would  be  to 
travel  beyond  the  sphere  of  human  action  into  that  of  thought, 
with  which  human  judgment  has  no  concern. 

I  apply  these  observations  specifically  to  the  instance  on  Avhich 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  commented  with  the  greatest 
severity — the  question  of  the  resumption  of  cash  payments  by  the 
Bank.     If  the  measure  to  be  proposed  on  the  report  of  the  Secret 
Committee  has  the  concurrent  recommendation  of  every  member 
of  the  Administration,  I  know  of  no  point  of  honour  which  calls 
for  explanation,  as  to  the  particular  opinions  which  may  have 
been  compromised  to  arrive  at  that  conclusion,  and  to  produce 
that  salutary  concurrence.     The  existence  of  that  complete  prac- 
tical concurrence,  on  that  most  important  practical  measure,  I 
have  the  happiness  to  announce.     The  right  honourable  gentle- 
man may  easily  point  out  (for  they  are  on  record)  the  particular 
differences  of  opinion  which  prevailed  at  a  former  period — a  pe- 
riod when  I  and  the  right  honourable  gentleman  thought  together 
on  the  principles  of  this  intricate  and  interesting  subject.     I,  Sir, 
hold  unchanged  the  opinions  which  I  avowed  in  1811.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman,  I  presume,  has  not  altered  his  opinions — 
indeed,  I  know  he  has  not  as  to  principles;  but  yet,  in  the  Secret 
Committee,  concurring  as  it  did   almost  unanimously  as  to  the 
practical  inference  to  be  drawn  from  those  opinions  as  applicable 
to  the  present  state  of  the  question,  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man admitted  that  he  stood  alone.     It  is  not  difficult  for  one  man 
to  be  unanimous:  but  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  much 
difficulty  in  understanding  how  those  who,  holding  different  opin- 
ions on  a  difficult  and  abstract  subject,  have  nevertheless  been  able 
to  agree  in  one  common  conclusion;  while  he,  holding  the  opin- 
ions of  the  majority,  had  contrived  nevertheless  to  have  a  conclu- 
sion entirely  to  himself.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  has  talked 
of  the  supposed  disunion  among  the  members  of  the  Cabinet,  as  if  it 
pervaded  every  question  connected  with  the  welfare  of  the  nation. 
But,  the  fact  is,  Sir,  that  I  know  but  one  great  national  question, 
namely,  that  which  is  called  the  Catholic  Question,  on  which  the 
members  of  Administration  are  divided  in  opinion;  and  no  man 
better  knows  the  sources  from  which  that  disunion  has  flowed, 
and  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  remedy  it,  than  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  himself.     On  that  question,  indeed,  I 
speak  my  sincere  sentiments,  when  I  say,  that  it  is  hopeless  to 


STATE  OF  THE  NATION.  297 

look  for  an  united  opinion  in  any  Administration  which  there  are 
the  means  of  forming.  I  believe  I  can  speak  with  as  much  expe- 
rience on  this  subject  as  any  one  in  the  House;  and  I  am  per- 
suaded, that  had  it  been  possible,  out  of  the  public  men  in  the 
country  to  form  an  Administration  united  on  the  Catholic  Ques- 
tion, and  not  differing  widely  on  other  questions  of  equal  imoort- 
ance,  that  object  would  have  been  achieved  in  1812.  To  that 
object,  I  twice  in  that  year  sacrificed  what  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  acknowledged,  and  what  I  have  no  hesitation  in  ac- 
knowledging with  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  to  be  the 
legitimate  object  of  liberal  ambition  in  a  free  state — a  share  in 
the  Government  of  the  country.  Twice  in  that  year  did  I  sacri- 
fice this  object  of  ambition,  for  the  express  purpose  of  being  the 
better  able,  either  to  produce  (in  conjunction  with  abler  and  wor- 
thier men,  who  earnestly  and  sincerely,  but  vainly,  laboured  after 
the  same  object)  the  union  in  Administration  of  persons  agreeing 
on  this  question,  or  (failing  that  attempt)  of  serving  the  question 
more  effectually  out  of  office.  It  is  not  necessary  to  recall  to  the 
right  honourable  gentleman's  recollection,  the  fruitlessness  of  the 
search  after  both  of  these  objects.  Every  attempt  at  forming  an 
Administration  that  should  be  united  upon  the  Catholic  Question, 
and  at  the  same  time  upon  other  great  principles  and  measures, 
more  immediately  connected  with  the  carrying  on  of  the  public 
service,  failed;  and  upon  that  failure  the  present  Administration 
was  formed.  In  that  formation  I  was  not  included;  but  I  speak 
with  perfect  confidence,  when  I  assert  that  those  who  gave  their 
support  to  the  present  Administration,  on  its  formation,  did  so  on 
the  understanding  that  every  member  of  that  Administration  en- 
tered into  office  with  the  express  stipulation  that  he  should  main- 
tain his  own  opinion  in  Parliament  on  the  Catholic  Question. 
Whether  such  a  stipulation  was  wise  or  not,  is  another  question 
which  I  will  not  now  argue;  but  I  will  say  to  those  who  now  first 
object  to  it,  that  they  come  too  late.  They  ought  to  have  stated 
their  objection  when  the  Administration  was  framing,  and  not 
now  charge  as  a  crime  that  which  was  settled  with  their  entire 
cognizance  and  zealous  approbation.  When  I  subsequently  en- 
tered office,  my  opinion  on  the  Catholic  Question  remained  un- 
changed; I  take  for  granted,  that  the  understanding  which  I  have 
described,  that  I  as  well  as  every  other  member  of  the  Cabinet, 
should  maintain  my  own  opinions  on  that  subject  in  Parliament, 
was  unchanged  also;  and  I  do  not  see  on  what  pretext,  having 
taken  a  course  in  perfect  coincidence  with  that  understanding,  I 
could  now  be  called  upon,  either  by  those  who  oppose,  or  those 
who  favour  the  Catholic  cause,  to  desert  the  ranks  of  the  Govern- 
ment. I  feel  no  such  obligation,  in  point  of  honour;  and  I  will 
go  farther,  and  confess,  that  after  all  that  has  passed  since  1812,  I 
40 


29S  STATE  OF  THE  NATION. 

should  now  doubt,  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  success  of  the  ques- 
tion itself,  the  prudence  of  attempting  to  make  it  the  test  and 
bond  of  opinion  in  an  Administration.  Although,  as  I  said  in 
1S12,  there  was  no  sacrifice  which  I  was  not  ready  to  make,  and 
which  I  did  not  make  for  the  sake  of  forming  an  Administration 
which  should  agree  upon  it,  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  accom- 
plishing that  object,  did  then  appear  to  me  insurmountable;  every 
succeeding  year  has  added  so  much  to  my  conviction  to  that  ef- 
fect, that  if,  by  the  vote  of  this  night,  the  power  of  forming  a  new 
Administration  should  be  conferred  on  the  right  honourable  gen- 
tleman, I  venture  to  assure  him,  that  he  would  find  it  less  easy 
than  he  is  aware,  to  form  an  Administration  which  would  be  able 
to  carry  that  question  effectively  and  safely  as  a  measure  of  Gov- 
ernment, and  at  the  same  time  to  do  justice  to  the  country  in 
other  important  branches  of  its  affairs.  Indeed,  the  gentlemen  on 
the  opposite  side  of  the  House  ceased,  long  before  I  did,  either  to 
imagine  such  a  scheme  of  Administration  feasible,  or  to  think  it 
desirable — I  know  not  which — for  in  1806,  when  the  framing  of 
an  Administration  was  entrusted  to  the  then  leaders  of  opposi- 
tion, they  not  only  included,  but  solicited  permission  to  include, 
in  their  cabinet,  two  noble  lords  (Lords  Sidmouth  and  Ellenbo- 
rough)  who  were  known  to  be  decidedly  hostile  to  any  farther 
concession  to  the  Catholics.  If  I  might  be  allowed  to  state  my 
present  creed  upon  the  subject,  I  would  say,  that  I  believe,  not 
only  that  the  difficulties  of  combining  an  Administration  unani- 
mous on  the  question  of  the  Catholic  Claims,  are  insurmountable, 
but  that  it  is  not  desirable,  with  a  view  to  the  public  good,  that 
such  an  Administration  should  be  formed.  An  Administration 
decidedly  and  uniformly  favourable  to  the  Catholic  Claims,  or 
one  decidedly  and  uniformly  hostile  to  them,  would  be  equally 
likely  to  excite  a  clamour,  and  to  engender  an  irritation,  at  vari- 
ance with  the  best  and  most  essential  interests  of  the  empire.  In 
this  case,  as  well  as  in  many  others,  that  which  at  the  time  it  oc- 
curred was  a  bitter  disappointment,  has  providentially  turned  out 
to  be  a  most  happy  circumstance.  The  question  is  (in  my  judg- 
ment) gradually  making  its  way  in  public  opinion;  and  to  public 
opinion  it  ought  to  be  allowed  eventually  and  soberly  to  settle  the 
question.  Such  are  my  sentiments  with  respect  to  that  question, 
the  only  important  question  on  which  any  difference  of  opinion 
exists  in  the  Cabinet. 

Another  charge  which  has  been  brought  forward  against  Gov- 
ernment is,  that  they  have  not  had  strength  enough  to  resist  the 
motions  which  have  been  forced  upon  them.  Undoubtedly  the 
charge  is  true  in  two  memorable  instances,  in  which  Ministers 
failed  in  resisting  the  appointment  of  committees^  Overloaded 
with  committees  of  their  own  proposing,  the  kindness  of  the  op- 


STATE   OF  THE  NATION.  299 

posite  side  of  the  House,  it  seems,  has  forced  upon  them  others 
which  they  have  not  been  able  to  decline,  although  anticipating 
from  them  mischiefs  of  the  greatest  hazard  and  magnitude. — Very 
true — twice  have  these  suggestions  been  tendered  for  their  accept- 
ance— twice  attempted  to  be  evaded,  and  twice  have  majorities  of 
the  House — not  very  large  ones  it  must  be  owned — but  majorities, 
compelled  their  acquiescence.  If  I  am  asked,  whether  this  is  the 
way  to  carry  on  the  affairs  of  the  nation  ?  I  answer  with  the  utmost 
frankness — No.  A  Government  by  minorities  would  undoubted- 
ly be  a  very  new,  and  upon  the  long  run,  not  a  very  safe  or  effi- 
cient mode  of  Administration.  But,  at  the  same  time,  there  are 
various  considerations  to  be  weighed  before  a  ministry  can  proper- 
ly fix  the  point  at  which  they  will  pledge  their  existence  as  a  Gov- 
ernment, upon  a  vote  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  occasion 
must  be  adequate,  or  they  might  cover  themselves  with  ridicule. 
But  the  frequency  of  small  occasions,  I  admit,  would  constitute 
an  adequate  case;  and  I  admit  farther,  that  enough  of  such  smaller 
occasions  have  occurred,  to  make  Ministers  very  anxious  to  learn 
whether  the  confidence  of  the  House  has  really  been  withdrawn 
from  the  existing  Administration,  and  to  make  them  feel  very 
thankful  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman  for  having  afford- 
ed an  opportunity  of  trying  that  question  upon  the  present  mo- 
tion. If  the  support  to  be  calculated  on  by  Government  be  only 
such  as  they  experienced  on  the  two  occasions  to  which  I  have 
alluded;  if  they  can  rely  on  no  other,  then,  no  doubt,  they  are 
gone.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  says  that  Ministers  will 
take  no  hints.  If  they  are  not  prepared  to  take  the  hints  to  which 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  adverts,  it  is  not  because  they  turn 
a  deaf  ear  to  them,  but  because  they  do  not  understand  them  so 
clearly  as  to  be  sure  that  they  would  do  right  in  acting  upon  them. 
A  series  of  such  hints  occurring  in  rapid  succession,  would  un- 
questionably throw  the  Government  into  the  right  honourable 
gentleman's  hands;  and  if  such  be  the  intention  of  the  House,  the 
sooner  and  the  more  clearly  ii  is  made  manifest  the  better. 

But  there  is  another  view  in  which  the  appointment  of  com- 
mittees is  objected  to  the  present  Administration.  It  is  said,  that 
they  are  a  government  of  committees — that  they  abdicate  the 
functions  of  the  executive  authority,  and  fritter  them  away  by 
partial  delegations.  It  is  a  little  hard  in  the  right  honourable  gen- 
1  leman  thus  to  blow  hot  and  cold  at  the  same  time.  Does  he  mean 
that  the  proposal  of  a  committee  is  in  itself  a  crime  in  a  Govern- 
ment, and  the  resistance  of  such  a  proposal  in  all  cases  a  duty? 
Does  he  mean  that  the  opposition  only  should  have  the  privilege 
of  proposing  a  committee,  and  then  of  railing  at  the  Government 
equally  whether  they  adopt  or  resist  it?  When  the  honourable 
gentlemen  get  into  one  of  their  cnnriliabvlps  to  devise  a  motion 


300  STATE  OF  THE  NATION. 

for  the  annoyance  of  Ministers,  do  they  once  in  a  hundred  times 
make  such  a  motion  in  a  direct  shape  for  such  or  such  specific 
measure?  No.  The  constant  device  is,  to  move  for  a  committee 
of  inquiry;  a  committee  of  inquiry  is  the  standing  recipe  for  stray 
votes — for  catching,  for  instance,  that  of  the  honourable  member 
for  Bramber  (Mr.  Wilberjbrce.)  Bait  the  hook  of  these  motions 
with  a  committee,  and  the  fish  are  sure  to  bite.  Nay,  some  hon- 
ourable gentlemen,  it  appears,  this  night,  are  so  voracious  for  a 
vote  in  opposition,  that  they  even  take  the  hook  when  there  is  no 
bait  to  cover  it;  when  the  right  honourable  gentleman  plainly  and 
openly  tells  them,  that  his  object  is  not  to  obtain  the  committee 
which  forms  the  pretext  of  his  motion — that  it  is  simply  and  na- 
kedly to  turn  out  the  Ministers. 

But,  Sir,  I  deny  that  Ministers  have  resorted  to  committees  ex- 
cept when  they  have  found  themselves  utterly  unable  to  discharge 
the  detailed  duties  entrusted  to  those  committees.  They  shrink 
from  no  just  responsibility;  they  neglect  no  attendance;  they  share 
no  discussion  in  this  House; — but  it  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind 
how  great  a  change  has  taken  place  of  late  years  in  the  business 
of  the  House  of  Commons — a  change  which  has  thrown  a  burden 
of  business  upon  Ministers,  which  no  physical  or  mental  consti- 
tution can  adequately  sustain.  I  call  upon  those  members  of  the 
House,  of  Commons  who  recollect  the  good  old  times  when  the 
destinies  of  the  empire  were  swayed  in  Parliament  by  Mr.  Pitt, 
or  Mr.  Fox,  to  say  whether  the  labours  of  an  Administration  in 
those  days  were  to  be  compared  with  what  they  are  now.  The 
Ministers  were  not  then  harassed  and  perplexed  by  a  complica- 
tion of  daily  business,  with  the  whole  of  the  details  of  which, 
however  trifling,  it  was  expected  that  they  should  be  intimately 
and  accurately  acquainted.  Their  time  wras  not  then  vexatiously 
wasted  on  questions  of  complaint  and  cases  of  pretended  griev- 
ance, such  as  a  pied-poudre  court  would  not  entertain;  such  as  a 
court  of  conscience  would  dismiss  without  the  award  of  a  farthing 
damages.  It  is  now  expected  that  Ministers  should  come  down 
to  the  House  every  night  fully  possessed  of  details  of  facts,  and 
characters  of  individuals  concerned,  and  histories  of  the  transac- 
tions of  years,  whenever  any  person  blasted  in  character  may 
have  prevailed  on  an  honourable  member  to  present  a  folio  volume 
of  a  petition,  charged  with  falsehoods  and  libels:  and  which,  after 
three  or  four  hours  wasted  in  fruitless  conversation,  is  found  to  be 
unfit  to  lie  upon  the  table.  Thus  the  marrow  of  the  day  is  con- 
sumed; and  then,  after  three  or  four  hours  passed  in  a  weary,  vex- 
atious, useless  debate,  the  Ministers,  jaded  and  fatigued,  as  they 
must  necessarily  be,  are  expected  to  proceed  to  public  business, 
with  a  host  of  new  opponents,  who  plene  pasti,  come  like  giants 
refreshed  to  the  battle;  whilst  the  unfortunate  Minister,  exhausted 


STATE  OF  THE  NATION.  301 

and  impransus,  is  to  enter  upon  a  new  course  of  wrangling,  hap- 
py if  at  last  he  can  get  through  one-third  part  of  the  real  business 
of  the  day.  It  is  not  then  in  these  cases  the  weakness  of  the 
Minister  of  which  complaint  ought  to  be  made,  but  the  weakness 
of  man;  for  human  strength  is  unable  to  endure  this  wearying, 
worrying,  uninteresting,  and  unprofitable  course  of  exertion. 
The  right  of  petitioning  is  a  sacred  right:  but  every  body  must 
feel  to  what  an  extent  in  these  days  the  abuse  of  it  is  carried. 
That  abuse  is  arrived  at  such  a  height,  that,  in  self-defence,  if  the 
House  values  its  time,  which  is  the  public  property,  and  its  func- 
tions, which  are  for  the  public  benefit,  it  must  be  remedied  one 
way  or  other.  While  Government  is  thus  daily  harassed  and 
tormented,  can  it  be  matter  of  surprise  that  many  important  ques- 
tions which  require  examination  in  detail,  are  referred  to  the  con- 
sideration of  committees?  How  else  can  they  be  beaten  out,  and 
sifted  to  the  bottom?  Neither  time  nor  human  strength  would 
avail  for  such  a  task. 

"  Why,"  it  is  said,  "  do  not  Administration  take  up  the  subject 
of  the  poor  laws?"  "  Why,"  it  is  asked  with  admirable  consist- 
ency on  the  part  of  the  honourable  gentlemen  opposite — "  why 
do  not  Government,  foolish  and  ignorant  as  they  are,  undertake 
to  settle  the  most  extensive  and  important  problem  that  ever  came 
before  Parliament?  Weak  and  contemptible,  why  do  they  not 
carry  a  measure  which  Mr.  Pitt,  in  the  plentitude  of  his  power, 
found  too  much  for  him;  in  which  Mr.  Whitbread,  in  the  vigour 
of  his  strength,  and  backed  by  the  influence  of  Administration, 
found  himself  utterly  unable  to  make  any  way?  With  such  ex- 
amples before  them,  why  do  not  Government  decide  off-hand  a 
question  growing  out  of  the  usage  of  centuries,  interwoven  with 
the  habits  and  deeply  rooted  in  the  prejudices  of  different  classes 
of  the  people?"  A  reference  to  what  has  actually  taken  place  will 
be  the  best  answer  to  these  queries.  It  will  be  seen,  that  the  sub- 
ject, even  in  the  neutral  hands,  as  I  may  call  them,  of  my  right 
honourable  friend  (Mr.  Sturges  Bourne)  whose  knowledge  and 
industry  so  well  qualify  him  for  the  task,  and  whose  firmness  and 
courtesy  have  conciliated  the  esteem  and  good-will  of  all  who 
have  had  to  act  with  him  upon  the  subject,  who  has  conducted 
the  discussions  upon  it  without  the  shadow  of  an  allusion  to  any 
topic  that  could  stir  up  party  feeling;  it  will  be  seen  even  in  his 
hands,  the  principal  measures  emanating  from  the  committee  over 
which  he  presided,  have  failed  of  receiving  the  support  of  the 
House — and  that  the  gentlemen  on  the  opposite  benches  are  di- 
vided in  opinion  respecting  it.  What  is  the  inference?  Simply 
this:  that  if  Government  had  brought  forward  such  a  proposition, 
and  had  attempted  to  carry  it  as  a  party  or  ministerial  question, 
the  benches  opposite  would  have  been,  night  after  night,  in  as  full 

BB 


302  STATE   OF  THE  NATION. 

array  as  they  are  at  the  moment  at  which  I  am  speaking:  and 
those  who  have  not  been  able  to  agree  on  a  question  by  the  deci- 
sion of  which  no  political  triumph  was  to  be  obtained,  would  have 
found  it  easy  enough  to  concur  in  opposing — where  opposition 
was  stimulated  by  the  hope  of  discomfiting  their  political  antago- 
nists. Gentlemen  well  know  with  how  many  inflammable  and 
inflammatory  topics  the  discussion  of  the  poor  laws  are  nearly  al- 
lied; how  much  food  for  declamation  would  have  been  furnished 
against  the  weakness,  the  inconsistency,  the  corruption  of  Minis- 
ters, if  they  had  hastily  adopted  any  plan  on  a  matter  so  deeply 
interesting  to  the  whole  nation,  and  perplexed  by  so  many  con- 
tradictory theories  and  conflicting  interests.  The  time  may  come 
when,  after  the  whole  of  this  great  subject  has  been  well  and  thor- 
oughly examined  by  the  persons  most  capable  of  examining  it 
advantageously,  by  persons  bringing  local  knowledge  and  practical 
experience  in  aid  of  general  principles  of  theory  and  law — it  may 
be  the  duty  of  the  Executive  Government  to  select  that  one  out 
of  the  different  suggestions  propounded  by  the  Committee,  to 
which  they  will  give  their  support,  and  which  they  will  endeavour 
to  persuade  Parliament  to  pass  into  a  law.  But  of  all  the  subjects 
of  legislation  on  which  Government  ought  not  hastily  and  prema- 
turely to  interfere,  without  ascertaining  and  if  possible  carrying 
with  them  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the  country — this  of  the 
poor  laws  appears  to  me  to  be  the  one  on  which  it  would  have 
been  the  most  unadvisable  to  take  a  precipitate  course. 

But  to  return  from  those  specific  charges  to  the  general  scope  and 
object  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  motion.  Suppose,  for 
a  moment,  that  it  were  carried,  what  is  the  amount  of  advantage, 
let  me  ask,  that  would  arise  from  the  change  of  Administration? 
Suppose  the  right  honourable  gentleman  and  his  friends  in  power; 
is  there  no  question,  like  that  of  the  Catholic  Claims,  or  the 
Scotch  Burghs,  which  might  produce  some  dissension  in  their 
ranks?  What  do  they  think  of  parliamentary  reform?  What 
do  they  think  of  another  Westminster  election?  It  is  true  that 
the  honourable  baronet,*  one  of  the  members  for  Westminster,  is 
this  night  with  them;  but  it  is  only  on  the  understanding  that 
they  will  support  his  darling  measure  of  parliamentary  reform. 
After  some  hesitation,  and  a  sort  of  whispering  negotiation,  car- 
ried on  openly  in  the  face  of  the  House,  it  appears,  that  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  has  acceded  to  the  honourable  baronet's 
conditions,  and  that  a  coalition  has  been  established  between 
them.  Suppose,  then,  the  new  coalition  Ministry  to  be  formed, 
who  in  point  of  talent — yes,  who  in  point  of  talent,  rank,  and  of 
consideration  in  the  country,  is  better  fitted  to  be  a  leading  mem- 

*Sir  Francis  Burdett. 


STATE  OF  THE  NATION.  303 

ber  of  that  Cabinet,  than  the  honourable  baronet?  Well  then, 
every  body  knows  that  one  of  the  first  questions  which  the  hon- 
ourable baronet,  when  Minister,  would  bring  forward,  would  be 
the  great  subject  of  Parliamentary  Reform.  What  then  would  be 
the  conduct  of  the  Whig  members  of  the  Cabinet?  Either  they 
would  come  forward  in  a  body  to  support  the  plan  of  their  hon- 
ourable colleague,  or  they  would  flatly  contradict  their  professions 
during  a  long  series  of  years,  and  by  refusing  to  support  a  reform 
in  Parliament,  create  a  division  in  their  Administration  on  what 
I  presume  the  right  honourable  gentleman  will  allow  to  be  one 
of  the  most  important,  the  most  comprehensive,  the  most  vital 
questions  that  ever  "agitated  the  country."  What  would  this  be 
but  the  very  same  reproach  which  they  so  unmercifully  cast  on 
their  unfortunate  predecessors?  An  honourable  member  has  said, 
that  if  the  Ministers  are  popular  in  the  House,  the  Whigs  are 
popular  in  the  country.  Really,  Sir,  I  should  have  thought  that 
popularity  was  the  last  topic  that  the  Whigs  would  have  suffered 
to  be  put  forward  as  one  of  their  pretensions  to  come  into  power. 
I  do  not  presume  to  say,  that  the  Ministers  are  particularly  popu- 
lar, or  that  I  am  so,  more  than  the  rest  of  my  colleagues;  but  I 
have  myself  gone  through  the  ordeal  of  a  popular  election,  with- 
out the  accompaniment  of  mud  and  grenadiers.  I  was  not  sub- 
jected to  such  striking  proofs  of  favouritism,  as  those  idols  of  the 
people,  the  Whigs:  my  retreat  was  effected  with  more  safety  than 
that  of  the  routed  cavalcade,  who,  with  laurels  in  their  hats,  and 
brickbats  at  their  heels,  bedaubed  with  ribbands  and  rubbish, 
were  only  rescued  from  their  overwhelming  popularity  by  a  de- 
tachment of  His  Majesty's  Horse  Guards!  Suppose,  then,  these 
mud-bespattered  Whigs  were  to  come  into  office  instead  of  the 
present  Ministry,  where,  after  all,  would  be  the  advantage  worth 
contending  about?  Is  it  the  trifling  difference  between  an  unpopular 
and  a  pelted  Administration?  The  right  honourable  gentleman  has 
confessed  that  the  present  is  a  trial  of  strength;  and  I  trust  that  the 
division  of  this  night  will  show  which  party,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
House,  is  most  likely  to  give  stability  to  our  internal  quiet,  and  per- 
manence to  our  external  glory;  and  to  diffuse  a  general  satisfaction 
and  general  confidence  throughout  the  country.  With  a  view  to  de- 
ciding this  question  of  preference  aright,  the  right  honourable  gen- 
tleman has  said,  that  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  committee  to  take 
a  retrospective  view  of  the  transactions  of  past  years.  Yes!  and 
in  fulfilling  that  duty,  the  committee  would  have,  on  the  one  side 
of  the  retrospect,  to  count  nations  rescued,  and  thrones  re-estab- 
lished; battles  won  with  matchless  courage,  and  triumphs  unpar- 
alleled in  their  splendour  and  consequences.  They  would  sec  this 
little  island,  after  having  saved  the  Continent,  watch  with  a  steady 
guardian  care  over  the  tranquillity  which  it  had  restored.     They 


304  STATE  OF  THE  NATION. 

would  have  to  enumerate,  on  the  other  side  of  the  account,  a  se- 
ries of  persevering  objections  to  every  measure  by  which  these 
glories  and  benefits  have  been  obtained;  a  succession  of  theories 
refuted  by  facts,  and  of  prophecies  falsified  by  experience:  an  uni- 
form anticipation  of  disaster  and  defeat,  contradicted  by  an  uniform 
achievement  of  successes  unequalled  in  our  history.  The  pro- 
posed committee,  if  appointed,  would  have  to  choose  between  the 
two  parties  to  which  these  attributes  respectively  belong.  But 
what  need  of  a  committee  to  make  the  option  ?  The  whole  sub- 
ject is  before  the  House;  and  the  House  may  at  once  come  to  the 
decision.  All  that  I  ask  for  my  friends  and  myself  is — a  decided 
course.  If  Ministers  are  found  wanting,  let  them  be  dismissed 
kindly  (for  promptitude  in  such  a  case  is  kindness,)  with  a  clear 
and  striking  majority.  If  the  course  which  they  bave  taken  is 
approved,  and  if  they  are  to  be  retained  by  the  vote  of  this  night 
in  office,  let  them  be  retained  with  the  assurance  of  receiving  such 
a  support  as  will  enable  them  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  the  country 
with  dignity  and  advantage. 

The  House  divided. — 

Ayes        ....        -        178 
Noes 357 

Majority  against  the  Motion      -        179 


305 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY  RE- 
MOVAL BILL. 

MARCH  16th,  1821. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  that  arose  on  the  order  of  the  day  being  read, 
for  the  second  reading  of  this  bill,  Mr.  Plunkett,  in  a  speech  of  transcendent 
ability,  supported  the  bill.  It  was  also  supported  by  Mr.  Wilberforce  and  Sir 
James  Mackintosh,  and  opposed  by  Mr.  Peel,  Sir  W.  Scott,  and  Mr.  Bathurst, 
who  moved,  as  an  Amendment,  "  That  the  bill  be  read  a  second  time  this  day 
six  months." 

Mr.  Canning  said,  that  often  as  it  had  fallen  to  him  during 
the  time  that  he  had  been  a  member  of  that  House,  to  take  part 
in  the  discussion  of  that  most  important  matter  which  was  this 
night  the  subject  of  their  deliberation,  he  had  never  risen  to  dis- 
charge his  duty  under  greater  anxiety  than  he  felt  on  the  present 
occasion.  That  anxiety  arose,  in  part,  from  the  intense  convic- 
tion which  he  felt  of  the  great  and  growing  expediency  of  the 
measure  then  proposed  to  the  House.  It  arose  in  part  also  from 
the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  the  determination  of  the 
House  was  then  to  be  taken.  Those  circumstances  did  not  con- 
sist in  an  augmentation  of  the  difficulties  by  which  the  question 
had  been  surrounded — for  difficulties  had  been,  in  some  degree, 
removed;  nor  did  they  arise  from  an  exaggeration  of  the  objec- 
tions which  were  opposed  to  the  measure — for  objections  hereto- 
fore insisted  upon,  appeared  to  have  been  in  some  measure  abated; 
neither  did  they  consist  in  any  irritation  of  the  public  mind — for 
never,  on  any  former  occasion,  had  the  public  mind  been  in  such 
a  state — he  would  not  say,  with  his  right  honourable  friend  (Mr. 
Peel) — of  apathy,  but  of  complete  resignation  to  the  wisdom  of 
Parliament.  They  did  not  consist  in  any  acerbity  of  temper  with 
which  the  discussion  had  been  carried  on  within  the  walls  of  that 
House;  for  eminently  on  that  night,  and  also,  as  he  had  been  in- 
formed, in  the  former  stage  of  this  discussion,  had  it  been  carried 
on  with  a  candour,  a  temper,  and  a  propriety,  that  did  high  hon- 
our to  the  right  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  who  had 
brought  in  the  present  measure,  and  to  his  right  honourable 
friend,  the  member  tor  Oxford,  who  had  opposed  it. 

Having  as  warm  a  feeling  of  esteem  for  his  right  honourable 
friend  as  it  was  possible  for  one  man  to  entertain  for  another — 
concurring  with  him  upon  most  subjects  of  public  policy  as  much 
as  it  was  possible  for  one  public  man  to  concur  with  another — 
yet,  differing  with  him  as  he  did  conscientiously  upon  the  present 

41  BB* 


306  ROMAN  CATHOLIC   DISABILITY 

question,  of  his  right  honourable  friend  he  must  say,  that  he  had 
discharged  a  painful  duty  upon  the  present  occasion,  in  a  manner 
which  reflected  the  highest  credit  on  his  public  character  and  con- 
duct, and  which  must  afford  him  satisfaction  in  the  retrospect,  to 
the  latest  hour  of  his  life. 

In  return,  he  (Mr.  C.)  hoped  he  might  be  allowed  in  the  out- 
set, to  assure  his  right  honourable  friend  and  the  House,  that  he 
came  to  this  debate  in  the  same  temper  of  mind  as  his  right  hon- 
ourable friend;  and  to  say,  that  if,  in  the  warmth  of  argument,  he 
should  fall  into  any  expression  which  might  be  supposed  to  con- 
vey disrespect  to  those  from  whose  opinions  he  differed,  he  trust- 
ed he  should  be  acquitted  of  any  intention  to  give  pain,  and  that 
for  any  such  accidental  intemperance,  the  interesting  nature  of 
the  cause  would  plead  his  apology.  It  was  from  the  very  im- 
provements in  the  position  of  the  great  question  about  to  be  de- 
cided; it  was  from  the  diminution  of  the  difficulties  with  which 
it  had  been  hitherto  surrounded;  from  the  abated  tone  of  the  ob- 
jections with  which  it  had  been  heretofore  assailed;  from  the 
acquiescence  without  doors,  and  the  calmness  within;  that,  de- 
riving unusual  hope,  he  also  derived  a  more  than  common  share 
of  anxiety.  In  proportion  as  those  external  causes  which,  on  for- 
mer occasions,  had  contributed  to  the  ill  reception  and  defeat  of 
this  question,  were  removed;  in  proportion  as  it  was  left  more 
freely  to  the  operation  of  its  own  intrinsic  merits,  the  responsi- 
bility for  a  favourable  result  appeared  to  weigh  more  heavily  upon 
its  advocates.  And  when,  in  addition  to  the  facilities  which  he 
had  already  enumerated,  he  considered  the  advantage  of  an  un- 
pledged Parliament,  and  the  auspiciousness  of  a  new  reign,  he 
could  not  help  avowing,  that  if  in  a  state  of  things  so  highly  en- 
couraging, the  issue  of  this  night's  discussion  should  prove — as 
he  trusted  it  would  not  prove — unfavourable,  he  should  almost  be 
led  to  despair  of  final  success. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  rather  the  magnitude  of  the 
issue  than  the  difficulty  of  the  argument  which  filled  him  with 
apprehension,  and  occasioned  him  to  approach  the  question  that 
night  with  a  trepidation  such  as  he  had  never  before  experienced. 
What,  then,  was  the  question  which  they  were  called  upon  to 
decide  ?  It  was  whether  they  should  allow  the  laws  that  affected 
the  Roman  Catholics  to  remain  in  their  present  state;  or  should 
reform  them  by  further  mitigations;  or  should  restore  them  to 
that  standard  from  which,  during  the  whole  of  the  late  reign,  Par- 
liament had  been  employed  in  gradually  bringing  them  down?  It 
was  idle  to  say  that  this  division  of  the  subject  was  invidious.  It 
was  impossible  to  look  to  the  laws  as  they  at  present  stood,  with- 
out adverting  to  the  origin  of  those  laws,  and  to  the  state  in  which 
they  had  stood  when  in  their  mature  and  undiminished  vigour,  in 


REMOVAL  BILL.  307 

order  to  obtain  a  complete  view  of  their  moral  operation  and  ef- 
fect. It  is  most  true,  as  had  been  stated  by  his  honourable  friend 
the  member  for  Bramber  (Mr.  Wilberforce,)  in  his  delightful 
speech  a  few  hours  ago,  that  it  was  not  merely  the  existing  state 
of  those  laws,  nor  the  temper  in  which  they  were  now  adminis- 
tered, that  was  to  be  considered,  when  you  were  about  to  deter- 
mine upon  their  continuance  or  repeal — the  temper  in  which 
they  were  originally  enacted — the  accusations  of  which  they 
were  now  the  memorial — the  imputations  which,  if  true,  war- 
ranted, more  than  any  other,  the  efficacy  with  which  they  were 
formerly  administered — must  all  form  part  of  the  consideration. 

These  laws,  be  it  remembered,  had  never  been  stationary;  for 
two  centuries  had  they  been  growing;  for  half  a  century  had  they 
been  in  their  decline.  At  the  summit  of  the  hill  there  was  a 
plain  of  only  twenty  years;  on  one  side  was  an  ascent  of  two 
hundred  years,  and,  on  the  other,  a  descent  of  about  sixty.  Was 
it  possible  to  contemplate  singly  the  point  to  which  sixty  years 
of  gradual  declension  had  brought  them,  without  taking  into 
view  the  point  of  cruel  perfection  from  which  they  began  to  de- 
cline, and  the  degrees  by  which  they  had  previously  been  raised 
to  it? 

Was  it  possible  to  consider  the  propriety  and  policy  of  what 
remains  of  the  code,  without  reference  to  the  cause  in  which  it 
had  originated; — to  the  reasons  or  the  pretexts  by  which  it  had 
been  justified; — to  the  effect,  good  or  evil,  to  which  it  had  ope- 
rated while  in  force; — to  the  recollections  with  which  it  was  as- 
sociated;— to  the  severities  which  it  had  inflicted; — to  the  resent- 
ments which  it  had  engendered; — to  the  character  of  the  times 
in  which  it  had  grown  and  flourished; — and  to  that  of  those  in 
which  it  was  now  proposed  to  abrogate  it  altogether? 

And,  first,  as  to  its  origin  and  causes: — At  what  period  in  the 
history  of  this  empire  were  the  laws  against  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics justified,  otherwise  than  by  the  supposed  political  as  well  as 
spiritual  connexion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  with  a  foreign  Power? 

The  argument  was  now  taken  as  if  that  connexion  had  been 
nothing  else  but  spiritual;  but  that  was  not  so — it  had  always 
been  made  ground  of  charge  against  the  Roman  Catholic,  that  he 
had  also  entertained  a  political  predilection,  or  acknowledged  the 
obligation  of  political  obedience  towards  a  foreign  Power.  That 
foreign  Power,  in  the  earliest  times  of  the  reformation,  was  the 
Pope,  then  formidable  in  temporal  as  well  as  in  spiritual  prepon- 
derance; and  arrogating  a  supremacy  over  the  temporal  concerns 
of  princes,  which  those  who  admitted,  could  be  but  imperfect  in 
their  allegiance  to  their  lawful  sovereigns.  In  later  times,  an  ex- 
iled family — exiled  on  account  of  political  as  well  as  religious 
bigotry — became  the  rival   of  the  reigning  dynasty  of  England, 


308  ROMAN   CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

and  divided,  or  assumed  to  divide  with  it,  the  allegiance  of  British 
subjects.  Concurring  in  the  religion  of  the  exiled  family,  the 
Roman  Catholic  subjects  of  the  British  Crown  were  held  also  to 
be  devoted  to  their  political  claims.  The  Roman  Catholic  was 
presumed  to  be  essentially  a  traitor;  but  as  treason  was  naturally 
concealed  as  much  as  possible,  while  religion  was  more  readily 
avowed  or  ascertained,  the  test  of  the  suspected  politics  was 
sought  in  the  professed  creed.     It  was  necessary  to  discover  the 

fapist  who  was  ready  to  restore  the  exiled  family  to  the  throne, 
t  was  devised  to  detect  him  by  the  oath  of  transubstantiation. 
Was  his  creed  his  guilt?  No.  But  his  creed  designated  the  man, 
and  his  guilt  consisted  in  his  foreign  attachment.  Would  any 
man  pretend  to  assert  that  that  attachment  existed  at  present? 
No,  it  was  gone — the  object  of  his  attachment  was  no  more.  But 
he  who  maintained  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  still  to 
be  made  the  subject  of  penal  laws!  This  was  to  mistake  a  rule 
for  a  reason.  It  was  as  if  a  magistrate,  having  received  informa- 
tion that  a  murder  had  been  committed  by  a  man  who  wore  spec- 
tacles and  a  wig,  and  having  apprehended  an  individual  distin- 
guished by  those  appendages,  should,  upon  its  being  afterwards 
ascertained  that  no  murder  had  been  committed  at  all,  still  refuse 
to  relinquish  his  man,  persisting  that  the  spectacles  and  wig  were 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  murder.  The  Roman  Catholic  be- 
lieving in  transubstantiation,,  had  been  formerly  the  object  of 
penal  laws,  because,  attached  to  an  exiled  family,  that  family  no 
longer  existing,  he  was  now  punished  for  believing  in  transub- 
stantiation. 

The  earliest  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  to  which  mankind,  and 
this  country  above  all,  were  indebted  for  so  many  invaluable  bless- 
ings, would  be  found,  like  all  great  mutations  in  the  affairs  of  the 
world,  to  have  been  tainted  with  many  acts  of  violence,  injustice, 
and  mutual  persecution.  Out  of  that  conflict,  the  Reformed 
Church  of  England  had  happily  come  triumphant;  but  was  it  now 
to  be  assumed  that  criminality  attached,  not  only  to  all  who  re- 
sisted, but  to  all  who  professed  the  creed  of  those  who  had  resist- 
ed its  establishment?  No  man  would  contend  for  so  unjust  a  prop- 
osition. 

He  thanked  God  that  the  Church  of  England  had  come  pros- 
perously out  of  that  arduous  struggle;  but  he  could  not  bring  him- 
self to  say  that  those  who  had  adhered  to  the  old  religion,  as  the 
mild  Melancthon  had  advised  his  aged  mother  to  adhere,  rather 
than  distract  herself  with  controversy,  were,  on  that  account,  fit 
objects  of  punishment.  Restrict  them  if  they  connected  their  re- 
ligion with  politics  hostile  to  the  peace  of  their  native  country; 
but,  happy  as  was  the  consummation  which  had  rendered  this  a 
Protestant  state,  he  could  not  consent  to  judge  harshly  of  those 


REMOVAL  BILL.  309 

who  had  opposed  the  change,  when  he  considered  under  what 
circumstances,  and  by  what  instruments  it  had  been  brought  about. 
Look  to  the  character  of  the  first  royal  promoter  of  Protestanism 
in  England,  and  to  the  mixed  motives  by  which  he  was  actuated: 
and  whether  you  attribute  his  conduct  to  policy  or  to  passion,  to 
avarice  or  to  vanity;  whether  you  agree  with  the  historian  who  de- 
scribes him  as  a  tyrant,  by  whose  arbitrary  laws  whoever  was  for 
the  Pope  was  hanged,  and  whoever  was  against  him  was  burned;  or 
with  the  poet,  who  attributes  his  conversion  to  a  softer  passion — 

"  When  love  could  teach  a  monarch  to  be  wise, 
And  gospel-light  first  dawn'd  from  Boleyn's  eyes." 

In  any  case,  surely  it  was  not  a  substantive  crime,  and  worthy  an 
inheritable  punishment,  to  have  opposed  an  innovation,  in  which, 
whatever  might  be  the  governing  motive,  it  was  at  least  pretty 
clear  that  simple  piety  had  no  considerable  share.  The  reign  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  was  glorious,  both  in  its  foreign  and  domestic 
policy;  but  it  was,  undoubtedly,  not  the  reign  either  of  civil  or 
religious  liberty.  In  that  reign  was  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
penal  code  against  the  Catholics;  but  laid  expressly  on  the  ground 
of  political  disaffection,  not  of  religious  differences.  Then,  in- 
deed, were  papists  excluded  from  the  House  of  Commons,  but 
they  were  expressly  allowed  to  continue  to  sit  in  the  House  of 
Lords.  And  why?  because  a  popish  lord  was  less  a  papist  than  a 
popish  commoner?  No — but  because  of  the  fidelity — the  political 
fidelity  of  her  peers,  the  Queen  said  she  had  other  means  of  as- 
suring herself.  During  the  reign  of  James  I.  the  Roman  Catholic 
was  stripped  of  his  privileges  as  a  citizen,  denuded  of  his  rights 
as  a  social  man,  deprived  of  the  common  connexions  of  country, 
rendered  liable  to  a  praemunire  if  he  stepped  five  miles  from  his 
own  threshold,  and  to  the  penalties  of  treason,  if  he  so  transgress- 
ed a  second  time;  but  was  it  necessary  to  remind  the  House  of 
Fawkes's  plot,  as  a  proof  that  treason,  not  faith,  was  the  cause  and 
the  object  of  these  terrible  enactments?  Terrible  as  those  enact- 
ments were,  it  must  be  allowed  that  there  was  some  justification 
for  them,  while  the  safety  of  the  state,  and  the  succession  to  the 
throne  were  threatened  by  the  conflict  of  the  hostile  religions. 
But  with  the  reign  of  James  I.  that  apology  seemed  to  end.  In 
the  reigns  subsequent  to  that  of  James  I.  was  there  any  thing  in 
the  conduct  of  the  Roman  Catholics  to  induce  the  belief  that  their 
religion  was  hostile  to  the  security  of  the  state?  In  the  reign  of 
Charles  I.  was  it  the  old  religion  that  overturned  the  monarchy? 
Did  the  Roman  Catholics  bring  that  monarch  to  the  block?  Was 
it  a  papist  who  struck  the  fatal  blow? 

It  had  been  asserted,  indeed,  in  that  debate,  that  it  was  impos- 
sible for  a  Roman  Catholic  to  enter  into  a  full  enjoyment  of  po- 
litical rights,  without  feeling  it  to  be  his  hounden  duty  to  employ 


310  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY. 

them  in  an  attempt  to  overturn  the  Protestant  ecclesiastical  estab- 
lishments of  the  country,  and  it  had  even  been  said  that  no  harm 
was  intended  in  imputing  this  doctrine  to  the  Catholics — that  it 
charged  them  with  nothing  which  they  who  made  the  charge 
would  be  ashamed  of  doing,  had  it  been  their  fortune  to  live  un- 
der an  adverse  ecclesiastical  establishment.  Now  he  thought  this 
was  taking  an  unfair  advantage.  Any  man  who  chose  to  throw 
away  his  own  character,  was  not  master  of  that  of  another;  and 
honourable  gentlemen  were  mistaken  in  thinking  that  by  thus  im- 
partially accusing  themselves,  they  acquired  the  right  of  incul- 
pating the  Catholics.  He  was,  therefore,  obliged  to  vindicate  his 
right  "honourable  friend  from  his  own  admission,  in  order  to  pro- 
tect the  Catholic  from  the  inference  deduced  from  it.  He  entire- 
ly disbelieved  his  right  honourable  friend's  self-accusation;  he  was 
.sure  that  if  the  lot  of  his  right  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Peel)  had 
been  cast  in  another  country,  of  which  the  established  religion 
was  different  from  his  own — and  if  he  had  there  been  allowed, 
nevertheless,  to  take  his  seat  in  the  senate,  and  to  exhibit  himself, 
as  he  did  at  present,  to  the  admiration  of  all  who  heard  him,  he 
was  sure  that  no  suggestion  of  priestcraft,  that  no  motive  of  con- 
science, would  ever  lead  him  to  attempt  the  overturn  of  the  es- 
tablishment of  that  country  which  had  placed  him  in  so  distin- 
guished a  situation. 

But  in  what  manner  did  the  history  of  England  bear  out  the 
theory  of  his  right  honourable  friend?  What,  as  he  had  already 
observed,  was  the  conduct  of  the  Catholics  of  England,  through- 
out the  trying  struggle  of  the  reign  of  Charles  I.?  A  continual 
tenour  of  adherence  to  the  Government  amidst  domestic  faction, 
and  civil  war,  and  at  the  risk  of  their  property  and  their  lives. 
Had  they  no  temptation  to  shrink  from  a  faithful  discharge  of  their 
duty?  and  yet  in  what  instance  had  they  failed? 

He  had  said  that  Catholics,  though  excluded  by  law  from  the 
House  of  Commons,  still  retained  their  seats  in  the  House  of 
Peers.  What  was  their  conduct  in  that  House  ?  and  how  was  it  re- 
quited? In  1641,  a  bill  was  brought  in  to  exclude  the  bishops  from 
sitting  in  Parliament.  In  the  House  of  Lords  it  was  lost  upon  a 
division,  and  in  the  majority  were  to  be  found  many  Catholic  peers. 
Thirty  years  after,  a  bill  was  sent  up  to  the  Lords,  for  the  exclu- 
sion of  Catholic  peers  from  seats  in  Parliament.  It  was  passed 
by  a  great  majority;  and  in  that  majority  were  included  the  Prot- 
estant bishops.  He  meant  nothing  disparaging  to  the  bishops  of 
that  day.  Undoubtedly,  they  thought  that  they  were  doing  their 
duty.  But  he  should  like  to  know — supposing  the  Catholics  to 
have  voted  for  the  expulsion  of  the  bishops,  as  the  bishops  did  for 
theirs — what  would  now  have  been  said  of  the  conduct  of  the 
Catholics?  Would  not  the  House  have  rung  with  the  triumphant 


REMOVAL  BILL.  311 

inference  that  now,  as  in  1 641,  the  admission  of  the  Catholics  into 
Parliament,  must  be  the  destruction  of  the  Protestant  hierarchy  ? 
The  only  inference  he  would  draw  was,  that  as  one  good  turn  de- 
served another,  the  passing  of  this  bill  would  afford  to  the  bishops 
of  the  present  day  an  opportunity  of  returning  the  obligation  of 
1641. 

But  some  gentlemen  had  a  still  more  ingenious  theory.  For 
two  centuries,  it  was  urged,  had  the  Catholics  been  brooding  pa- 
tiently over  their  wrongs,  and,  like  the  Brutus  of  history,  dis- 
guising, under  the  appearance  of  insensibility,  the  deep  sense 
which  they  entertained  of  them — they  were  only  waiting  for  the 
passing  of  this  bill  to  wreak  the  vengeance  which  had  so  long 
been  smothered  in  their  breasts.  Indeed!  and  had  this  and  form- 
er debates  so  far  exhausted  all  reasonable  objections,  and  all  ration- 
al fears,  that  we  were  now  to  be  daunted  from  doing  what  was 
right,  by  the  apprehension  that  the  present  race  of  Catholics  would 
throw  off  a  mask  worn  by  successive  generations  of  their  ances- 
tors, and  revenge  themselves  in  the  first  delirium  of  new-gotten 
freedom  for  ages  of  suppressed  feeling  and  hypocritical  fidelity  ? 
Surely  to  believe  in  such  a  danger,  required  more  than  a  Roman 
Catholic  credulity. 

He  had  hitherto  spoken  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  gene- 
rally, and  addressed  himself  to  its  operation  in  England.  He  now 
came  to  speak  more  particularly  of  that  part  of  the  united  king- 
dom which  was  more  peculiarly  interested  in  the  present  question 
— of  Ireland. 

During  the  earlier  of  the  reigns  of  which  he  had  shortly  re- 
viewed, the  Reformation,  which,  in  England  had  made  such  rapid 
strides,  had  not  only  mounted  the  throne,  but  almost  monopolized 
the  legislature,  it  had  made  no  progress  whatever  in  Ireland.  And 
why?  And  whose  the  fault?  No  pains  had  been  taken  to  advance 
it.  On  the  contrary,  to  judge  from  facts,  it  was  the  policy  of 
Elizabeth  to  keep  it  back.  Neglect  alone  hardly  furnished  a  suf- 
ficient solution  of  such  total  apathy  in  one  kingdom,  contrasted 
with  so  stirring  and  anxious  an  activity  in  the  advancement  of 
Protestantism  in  the  other.  But  such  was  the  fact.  What  won- 
der then,  that  the  rebellion  in  the  time  of  Charles  I.  assumed  in 
Ireland  a  popish  character,  when  the  whole  population  were  pa- 
pists? What  wonder  if  politics  and  religion  were  mixed  up  in  a 
country  where  the  Reformation  never  entered  at  all;  and  the  re- 
formed religion  never,  but  in  arms  and  as  a  conqueror?  Such 
was  its  entry,  first  under  Cromwell,  and  last  under  King  William. 
The  penal  code  against  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  dated  from  the 
conquest  of  that  kingdom  by  William  III.  The  popish  Parlia- 
ment had  enacted  severe  laws  against  Protestants,  the  Protestant 
Parliament  had  retaliated  most  severely.     No  single  individual 


312  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

would  have  dared  to  take  upon  himself  the  odium  attendant  on 
such  retaliation.  From  that  Parliament  emanated  a  series  of  laws, 
such  as  had  not  previously  existed  in  the  records  of  legislation — 
laws,  the  framers  of  which  seemed  to  have  taxed  their  imagina- 
tion to  find  out  the  sore  points  of  human  nature  to  which  they 
might  apply  them  as  corrosives — laws  which  counteracted  all  the 
feelings  of  nature,  destroyed  all  the  comforts  of  families  so  long 
as  they  existed;  and  exist  they  did,  until  the  fourteenth  year  of 
the  rei<m  of  George  III.  all  in  full  force  and  undiminished  vigour. 
By  them  the  conforming  son  could  seize  upon  the  property  of  the 
unconforming  father;  by  them  the  unprincipled  and  heartless 
Protestant  wife  could  array  herself  in  the  riches  of  her  betrayed 
Catholic  husband;  by  them  the  orphan  heretic  might  be  robbed  by 
any  anti-papist  plunderer  of  his  patrimony;  through  their  opera- 
tion there  was  no  faith  in  kindred,  no  social  intercourse  of  friend- 
ship, no  security  in  any  of  the  relations  of  domestic  life.  In  1774 
came  the  first  relaxation  of  this  accursed  system,  the  first  breathing 
of  a  mighty  thaw  upon  that  accumulated  mass  of  cold  and  chill- 
ins:  enactments,  which  till  then  had  concealed  and  benumbed  a 
nation.  What  was  the  first  symptom  of  this  genial  spirit?  It  was 
a  symptom  sufficiently  indicative  of  the  degraded  state  to  which 
the  Catholic  had  been  reduced,  and  of  the  difficulty  which  benev- 
olent repentance  found  in  breaking  up  the  frost  which  so  long  had 
bound  him.  The  first  relaxation,  that  omen  of  returning  spring, 
enabled  the  papist,  notwithstanding  his  belief  in  transubstantiation, 
to  rent — oh,  mighty  indulgence! — fifty  acres  of  bog!  This  relax- 
ation was  found  to  succeed  so  well,  the  Protestant  establishment 
continued  so  firm  under  the  shock  of  it,  that  Parliament  allowed 
them  afterwards  to  take  a  lease  for  sixty  years.  From  that  time 
the  system  was  progressively  mitigated  until  the  year  1793,  which 
crowned  and  consummated  the  gift  of  civil  liberty,  and  left  only 
political  concession  imperfect — imperfect  in  actual  deed — but  in 
principle  acknowledged  and  anticipated. 

When,  in  the  year  1793,  the  elective  franchise  was  conceded 
to  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  that  acknowledgment  and  anticipation 
which  he  called  upon  the  House  that  evening  formally  to  ratify 
and  realize  was,  in  point  of  fact,  irrevocably  pronounced.  To 
give  the  Catholic  the  elective  franchise,  was  to  admit  him  to  po- 
litical power.  To  make  him  an  elector,  and  at  the  same  time  ren- 
der him  incapable  of  being  elected — was  to  attract  to  your  side 
the  lowest  orders  of  the  community,  at  the  same  time  that  you 
repelled  from  it  the  highest  orders  of  the  gentry.  This  was  not 
the  surest  or  safest  way  to  bind  Ireland  to  the  rest  of  the  empire 
in  ties  of  affection.  What  was  there  to  prevent  our  union  from 
being  drawn  more  closely?  Was  there  any  moral — was  there  any 
physical  obstacle?    Oppomit  natural   No  such  thing.     We  had 


REMOVAL  BILL.  313 

already  bridged  the  channel.  Ireland  now  sat  with  us  in  the  re- 
presentative assembly  of  the  empire;  and  when  she  was  allowed 
to  come  there,  why  was  she  not  also  allowed  to  bring  with  her 
some  of  her  Catholic  children?  For  many  years  we  had  been 
erecting  a  mound,  not  to  assist  or  improve,  but  to  thwart  nature. 
We  had  raised  it  high  above  the  waters;  and  it  had  stood  there 
frowning  hostility,  and  effecting  separation.  In  the  course  of  time, 
however,  chance  and  design,  the  necessities  of  man  and  the  silent 
workings  of  nature,  had  conspired  to  break  down  this  mighty 
structure — till  there  remained  of  it  only  a  narrow  isthmus, 
standing 

"  Between  two  kindred  seas, 

Which,  mounting-,  vievv'd  each  other  from  afar, 
And  long'd  to  meet." 

"  What  then  shall  be  our  conduct?  Shall  we  attempt  to  repair 
the  breaches,  and  fortify  the  ruins? — a  hopeless  and  ungracious 
undertaking — or  shall  we  leave  them  to  moulder  away  by  time 
and  accident? — a  sure,  but  distant  and  thankless  consummation. 
Or  shall  we  not  rather  cut  away  at  once  the  isthmus  that  remains, 
allow  free  course  to  the  current  which  our  artificial  impediments 
have  obstructed,  and  float  upon  the  mingling  waves  the  ark  of  our 
common  Constitution?" 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  then  proceeded  to  reply  to  va- 
rious detached  objections  which  had  been  offered  in  the  course  of 
the  debate  by  different  speakers.  Some  gentlemen  were  afraid 
that  when  the  final  concessions  were  granted,  those  persons  who 
had  stood  by  the  Constitution  when  they  only  enjoyed  its  bene- 
fits partially,  would  rise  up  against  it,  after  being  admitted  to  the 
full  participation  of  its  blessings.  This  was  not  likely.  As  yet 
the  Constitution  was  to  them  negative  and  repulsive.  Then  it 
would  be  positive  and  full  of  advantage.  We  had  frequently 
been  assailed  by  the  prayers  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  but  we  had 
as  often  treated  them  with  scorn,  professing  at  the  same  time  to 
do  it  for  their  own  good.  Indeed,  he  thought  that  the  Catholics 
might  address  us  in  pretty  much  the  same  language  as  a  certain 
lover  had  addressed  his  mistress: — 

"  When  late  I  attempted  your  pity  to  move, 
Oh,  why  were  you  deaf  to  my  prayers'? 
Perhap-s  it  was  right  to  dissemble  your  love, 
But  why  did  you  kick  me  down  stairs!" 

Others  apprehended  that  they  would  still  be  discontented  be- 
cause all  offices  could  not  be  opened  to  them  indiscriminately, 
not  those,  for  instance,  which  had,  by  the  nature  of  their  func- 
tions, any  connexion  with  ecclesiastical  interests.  Surely  the 
distinction  was  plain  enough.  With  the  established  religion  of 
the  country  the  Roman  Catholics  would  of  course  have  nothing 
42  cc 


31 4  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

to  do.     This  must  be  a  first  and  fundamental  principle,  both  of 
all  that  was  yielded  and  all  that  was  retained.     None  but  those 
who  professed  the  established  religion  of  the  state  could  pretend 
to  the  exercise  of  any  functions  immediately  connected  with  that 
religion,  or  with  the  ecclesiastical  system  in  which  it  was  em- 
bodied.    They  had  already  provided  liberally  for  diffusing  the 
benefits  of  education  in  Ireland — and  God  forbid  that  any  sect  of 
Christians  should,  on  account  of  their  faith,  be  deprived  of  the 
means  of  obtaining  knowledge — but  God  forbid,  he  would  also 
say  at  the  same  time,  that  the  means  of  education  should  not, 
wherever  it  was  possible,  be  conferred  under  the  auspices  of  our 
national  church!     The  provisions  of  the  bill  excluded  Roman 
Catholics  from  the  universities,  and  from  the  spiritual  courts.  He 
could  perceive  no  difficulty,  no  injustice,  in  carrying  those  pro- 
visions into  effect,  and  in  considering  them  as  conditions  of  this 
final  adjustment.     This  exclusion  must  undoubtedly  be  a  perpet- 
ual, indispensable  article  of  the  new  compact,  which,  he  trusted, 
they  were  on  the  point  of  ratifying.  He  relied  for  the  observance 
of  that  article  on  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  as  well  as  on  the 
millions  of  hands  and  hearts  which  were  ready  to  defend  it  in 
case  of  an  attempt  to  abrogate  or  repeal  it.  Such  an  apprehension, 
therefore,  could  afford  no  legitimate  ground  for  refusing  to  share 
with  our  fellow-subjects  the  blessings  which  we  enjoved.     Nor 
could  he  join  in  the  opinion  that  the  passing  of  this  bill  would 
divorce  the  union  of  the  national  church  and  state.    He  could  not 
think  that  the  Crown  would  be  desecrated  and  the  monarchy  ren- 
dered unholy,  any  more  than   insecure;    when  every  christian 
creed   should  be  admitted  to  the  franchises  of  the  Constitution, 
and  when  thanksgivings  for  a  community  of  benefits  were  breath- 
ed alike  in  every  diversity  of  christian  prayer. 

He  next  adverted  to  the  fears  which  had  been  expressed  of  a 
combination  of  Roman  Catholic  members  of  Parliament  to  carry 
points  favourable  to  their  separate  interests  and  persuasions.   First, 
the  number  of  members  that  would  be  returned  from   Ireland, 
how  infinitely  small  would  it  be  in  comparison  with  the  whole 
representation  ?    But  let  them  for  a  moment  suppose  the  case  of 
any  considerable  number  of  these  much  dreaded  Catholics  pos- 
sessing seats  in  that  House,  what  was  it  that  they  could  combine 
to  accomplish  or  to  repeal?    What  objects  could  they  have  in 
view?    They  must  necessarily  be  objects  of  private  or  local  inter- 
est; for  with  regard  to  political  designs,  with  regard  to  all  that 
appertained  to  the  advancement  of  their  faith  or  spiritual  interests, 
suspicion  was  alive,  and  the  attempt  must  be  defeated  as  soon  as 
it  was  made.     Such  a  combination,  if  directed  to   general  pur 
poses,  must  be  as  notorious  as  the  sun  at  noon;  and  must  be  de- 
feated as  soon  as  known.     Others  again,  dreaded  not  the  opera- 


REMOVAL  BILL.  315 

tion  of  numbers,  but  the  danger  to  arise  from  the  return  of  dema- 
gogues to  Parliament.  He  should  only  answer,  that  in  Parlia- 
ment he  wished  to  see  them.  He  had  never  known  a  demagogue 
who,  when  elected  to  a  seat  in  that  House,  did  not,  in  the  course 
of  six  months,  shrink  to  his  proper  dimensions.  In  the  event  of 
a  parliamentary  reform  it  would  be  his  wish  to  see  a  little  nest  of 
boroughs  reserved  for  their  separate  use,  and  he  should  not  be 
alarmed  at  their  introduction,  even  although  they  had  been  quali- 
fied in  Palace-yard.  "  Here,"  he  would  say,  "  let  the  demagogue 
appear,  and  let  him  do  his  worst." 

To  return,  however,  to  the  main  question,  he  was  aware  that 
he  had  exercised  too  long  the  patience  of  the  House:  he  felt  the 
importance  of  the  subject  most  deeply:  he  was  convinced  that 
this  bill,  or  (as  he  did  not  mean  to  affirm  that  it  was  perfect  of  its 
kind,)  a  bill  of  this  nature  was  necessary,  and  was  most  expedient 
at  the  present  season.     The  moment  was  peculiarly  favourable  for 
discussion,  and  singularly  free  from  any  hazard  with  which  the 
measure  might  otherwise  be  attended.     We  were  now  in  the  en- 
joyment of  a  peace  achieved  by  the  common  efforts  of  both  reli- 
gions, by  Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant  arms,  and  cemented  by 
Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant  blood;  a  peace  which,  notwithstand- 
ing the  threatening  aspect  of  affairs  in  some  quarters  of  Europe, 
he  hoped  and  believed  was  destined  to  be  permanent.     But  it  be- 
came us,  with  a  view  to  political  contingencies,  to  fortify  ourselves 
by  adopting  all  those  means  of  strength  which  were  offered  to  our 
hands;  and  never  did  a  more  auspicious  period  occur  for  such  a 
purpose.    How  beneficial  to  extinguish  a  question  that  never  could 
be  discussed  without  agitating  large  classes  of  the  community! 
How  desirable  to  avoid  the  inconvenience  which  must  follow  the 
loss  of  that  question  at  this  time — its  revival  from  year  to  year 
with  increasing  and  more  hopeless  agitation!    How  delightful  to 
convert  the  murmur  of  national  discontent  into  the  voice  of  na- 
tional gratitude!  The  expression  of  national  gratitude  was  not  al- 
ways conveyed  by  the  proud  column  or  the  triumphal  arch;  but 
let  this  grand  effort  of  legislation  be  consummated,  and  he  had 
not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  but  that  the  sentiment  would  be  effect- 
ually inspired  and  unequivocally  displayed.     It  was  indifferent  to 
him,  provided  the  result  was  concord,  on  which  side  the  work  of 
conciliation  began.     He  cared  not  whether  the  boon  was  plucked 
from  Protestant  acknowledgment,  by  the  patience,  the  long  suffer- 
ing, and  the  supplications  of  the  Catholic;  or  was  tendered  in  gener- 
ous confidence,  as  a  voluntary  gift.     It  would,  in  either  case,  like 
"the  gentle  dew  from  heaven,"  bless  both  the  giver  and  the  re- 
ceiver; resembling  those  silent  operations  of  nature  which  per- 
vade and  vivify  the  universe,  receiving  and  repaying  mutual  bene- 
fits, whether  they  rose  in  the  grateful  exhalation,  or  descended  in 


316  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

the  fertilizing  shower.  To  conclude,  he  conjured  the  House  to 
adopt  a  measure,  from  which  he  entertained  a  conviction  approach- 
ing to  prescience — that  far  from  having  cause  to  repent  of  its  re- 
sult, they  would  long  reap  a  rich  harvest  of  national  strength,  and 
happiness,  and  renown. — [The  right  honourable  gentleman  sat 
down  amidst  fervent  and  general  cheering.] 

The  question  being  put,  "  That  the  bill  be  now  read  a  second  time,"  the 
House  divided : 

Ayes 254 

Noes 243 

Majority        -        -        11 
The  bill  was  then  read  a  second  time;  and  at  half  past  three  in  the  morning, 
the  House  adjourned. 


MARCH  26th,  1821. 


Mr.  Bankes,  in  the  Committee  on  the  Roman  Catholic  Disability  Removal 
Bill,  moved  the  insertion  of  a  clause  in  the  bill,  excluding  Roman  Catholics 
from  seats  in  Parliament. 

Mr.  Canning  said,  he  agreed  with  those  honourable  members 
who  considered  this  as  the  most  important  point  of  the  bill.  He 
agreed  that  it  was  that  of  which,  if  refused,  the  refusal  would  take 
much  from  the  value  of  any  other  concessions,  and  of  which,  if 
conceded,  the  concession  would  enhance  greatly  their  importance. 
He  agreed  that  it  was  a  point,  the  granting  of  which  would  form 
the  key-stone  of  that  arch  which  they  were  erecting,  and  com- 
plete that  incorporation  of  interests  which  was  the  object  of  those 
who  took  part  in  promoting  this  bill.  He  agreed,  at  the  same 
time,  that  they  who,  with  him,  contended  for  the  admission  of  Ro- 
man Catholics  into  Parliament,  were  not  entitled,  from  any  pre- 
vious vote  to  which  the  House  had  come  in  the  course  of  the  pres- 
ent discussions,  to  assume  this  point  as  conceded,  or  to  preclude  a 
renewed  examination  of  it  in  the  present  stage.  Nothing  had  been 
conceded,  in  fact  or  in  argument,  that  could  prevent  members 
from  deciding  upon  the  point  before  them,  according  to  its  merits. 
Differing  as  he  did  from  the  right  honourable  gentleman  who  had 
last  addressed  the  committee,  he  begged  to  guard  against  any  mis- 
apprehension of  what  he  should  say,  by  offering  at  the  outset  the 
tribute  of  his  acknowledgment  for  the  general  candour  and  libe- 
rality with  which  he  (the  Speaker)  had  stated  his  opinion,  an 
opinion,  it  was  unnecessary  to  say,  formed  most  conscientiously, 
and  not  urged  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  beyond  the 
bounds  of  fair  argument  and  discretion.  Whatever  the  result 
might  be,  he  (the  Speaker)  would  have  the  satisfaction  of  feeling, 
that  he  had  contributed  his  full  share  to  the  elucidation  of  the  ques- 


REMOVAL  BILL.  317 

tion,  and  to  the  good  temper  which  had  happily  pervaded  the 
whole  discussion. 

He  would  now  proceed,  first,  to  state  what  he  might  conceive 
to  be  the  claims  (the  extent  to  which  he  understood  the  term 
"  claims,"  he  would  afterwards  explain,  in  order  to  guard  against 
misconstruction.)  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Catholics  to  admission 
into  Parliament;  and  secondly,  he  would  inquire  what  dangers, 
real  or  imaginary,  might  obstruct  the  concession  of  those  claims. 
Now  as  to  the  term  "  claims,"  he  was  ready  to  avow  his  convic- 
tion, that  neither  an  individual  nor  a  body  of  men,  could  be  prop- 
erly said  to  have  any  natural  claims  belonging  to  them  as  men,  to 
any  political  franchise  or  employment.  The  claims  of  men  in  a 
civilized  society  were  subject,  not  only  to  limitation  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  times,  but  to  lasting  control  from  the  necessity 
of  the  state.  The  exclusion  of  the  Roman  Catholics  from  Parlia- 
ment was  just,  if  it  was  necessary;  and  the  point  now  under  dis- 
cussion was  whether  such  a  necessity  existed  or  not.  Without 
reverting,  however,  to  any  wild  theory  of  natural  right,  and  un- 
der the  qualification  which  he  had  already  explained,  he  had  no 
hesitation  in  affirming,  that  in  every  civilized  society,  and  in  every 
well  constituted  state,  wealth,  ability,  knowledge,  station,  gave  a 
claim  to  office;  and  that  eligibility  to  office  had  always  been  an 
object  of  ambition  with  the  most  cultivated  minds.  In  this  coun- 
try, for  ages  past — and  he  hoped  for  ages  to  come — the  highest 
object  had  been,  was,  and  would  be,  to  obtain  a  seat  in  the  assem- 
bly which  governs  the  counsels  of  the  nation.  To  be  excluded 
by  positive  enactment  from  the  pursuit  of  this  object  of  ambition, 
he  would  not  say  was  an  exclusion  which  no  circumstances  could 
warrant,  and  no  expediency  justify;  but  it  was  an  exclusion  so  se- 
vere as  to  be  justified  only  by  circumstances  which  could  not  be 
mistaken,  and  an  expediency  not  to  be  avoided  or  controlled.  The 
burden  of  proof  rested  with  those  who  contended  for  the  exclu- 
sion. Exclusion  was  the  exception.  The  general  rule  was  the 
other  way.  Undoubtedly,  if  we  looked  back  to  the  times  pre- 
ceding the  Reformation,  we  should  find  that  no  class  of  society 
was  then  precluded  from  the  political  service  of  the  state.  The 
distinction  grew  up  with  the  Reformation,  a  transaction  affecting 
the  whole  of  Europe,  and  the  policy  external  and  internal  of 
every  state  composing  the  European  commonwealth;  which 
changed  the  line  of  demarcation  between  nations,  and  separated 
each  people  among  themselves.  A  Protestant  and  a  Catholic  inter- 
est grew  up,  which  divided  and  classed  the  nations  of  Europe; 
and  within  each  each  nation  took  place  a  correspondent  division 
and  classification;  which  had  the  double  effect  of  arraying  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  same  community  against  each  other,  and  creating 
in  each  part  respectively,  a  sympathy  with  foreign  states.     Simi- 

cc* 


31S  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

larity  of  creed  was  brought  into  competition  with  identity  of  coun- 
try; and  in  many  instances,  and  on  many  occasions,  it  could  not 
be  denied,  the  religious  sentiment  was  too  strong  for  the  patriotic. 
Grant,  then,  as  he  might  safely  do,  for  argument's  sake,  that,  dur- 
ing the  existence  of  this  struggle,  in  its  full  force,  it  might  not  be 
safe  to  admit  to  political  power  the  professors  of  any  other  than 
the  predominant  national  religion,  and  that  such  a  state  of  things 
justified  exclusion;  still,  if  that  state  of  things  no  longer  existed, 
if  the  struggle  between  patriotism  and  religious  sympathy  was  at 
an  end,  if  in  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  whatever  might  be  the 
form  of  their  government  or  the  modification  of  their  faith,  that 
line  of  demarcation  was  effaced  (with  the  exception,  he  would  ad- 
mit, of  Spain  and  Portugal,  where  the  Reformation  never  made 
its  way,  and  where,  therefore,  the  materials  for  conflict  and  subse- 
quent reconcilement  had  not  been  created;)  and  if  we  still  saw  that 
line  in  full  force  among  ourselves,  if  we  found  the  only  trace  of 
that  demarcation  in  this  country,  a  country  blessed  with  a  greater 
portion  of  regulated  liberty  than  any  other — a  country  in  which 
every  individual,  born  in  whatever  station,  could  rise  to  the  high- 
est honours  under  the  Crown  by  the  exercise  of  talent,  industry 
and  virtue;  must  not  we  be  at  a  loss  to  reconcile  this  inconsisten- 
cy; and  ought  we  not  to  look  anxiously  to  the  time  when  it  would 
be  entirely  removed? 

He,  therefore,  did  not  contend — his  argument  did  not  require 
that  he  should  contend — that  at  the  period  immediately  subse- 
quent to  the  Reformation  those  who  continued  attached  to  the 
church  and  court  of  Rome,  after  the  bulk  of  the  population  of 
England,  as  well  as  its  Crown  and  Parliament,  had  embraced  the 
tenets  of  the  Reformation,  and  abjured  all  temporal  as  well  as 
spiritual  allegiance  to  the  Pope,  might  not  be  justifiably  excluded 
from  political  power.     He  troubled  not  himself  with  any  reason- 
ing upon  this  point;  but  he  did  contend  for  the  fact,  that  whatever 
disqualification  was  then  imposed  on  the  Roman  Catholics  by  the 
governing  power,  was  justified  on  the  ground  of  danger  from 
foreign  interference,  foreign  connexion,  and  foreign  allegiance; 
and  that,  without  one  exception,  that  danger  was  stated  as  con- 
stituting the  sole  necessity  for  such  disqualification.     But  where 
was  now  the  danger  of  foreign  interference,  foreign  connexion, 
or  foreign  allegiance,  which  justified  the  maintenance  of  that  dis- 
tinction   in  this  country  which  other   countries  had  abolished? 
He  called  upon  the    House,  therefore,  to  reform  so  unjust  an 
anomaly,  if  it   could   with   safety   be   reformed.     By   the   acts 
which   excluded  Roman  Catholics  from  Parliament,  foreign  al- 
legiance was  distinctly  stated  as  the  cause  of  the  exclusion.     It 
was  stated  in  the  statute  of  Elizabeth  the  more  distinctly,  from 
the  partiality  of  its  operation.     The  Roman  Catholic  commoners 


REMOVAL  BILL.  319 

were  excluded  by  it  from  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons;  but 
the  right  of  the  Roman  Catholic  peers  to  sit  in  the  House  of 
Peers  was  not  taken  away.  And  why?  because  the  Roman 
Catholic  peers  were  less  Catholic  than  the  commons? — because 
the  Commons  continued  to  hold  doctrines  which  the  lords  had 
abjured?  No  such  thing.  In  this  respect  there  was  no  difference 
between  them.  The  reason  was  avowed  to  be  this:  the  Queen 
having  other  means  of  ascertaining  the  fidelity  of  the  peers,  it  was 
therefore  not  necessary  to  exclude  them.  It  was  not  therefore 
doctrine  or  dogma;  it  was  not  transubstantiation,  but  political 
attachment,  which  formed  the  ground  of  admission  or  exclusion. 
The  individual  peers  being  under  the  Queen's  immediate  eyes, 
she  could  satisfy  herself  of  their  political  allegiance  and  attach- 
ment; but  the  multitude  of  the  commons  precluding  any  such 
personal  security,  it  was  thought  necessary  to  exclude  them  from 
admission  to  Parliament.  So  much  for  the  principle  of  the  law. 
And  now  what  was  the  extent  of  its  operation  ?  A  period  of  about 
260  years  had  elapsed  since  the  statute  of  Elizabeth  was  passed. 
For  not  much  less  than  one-half  of  that  period  commoners  alone 
were  excluded  from  Parliament — peers  continuing  to  sit  there. 
During  that  time,  therefore,  at  least,  there  was  no  change  in  the 
policy  of  the  exclusion.  It  rested  on  the  grounds  on  which  it 
was  originally  enacted — dread  of  foreign  allegiance,  not  danger 
of  popish  faith.  In  fact,  the  religious  reason  for  the  exclusion, 
dated  only  from  the  act  of  Charles  II. — an  act  passed  in  a  moment 
of  delirious  fear  and  fury — the  sure  advisers  of  indiscriminate 
violence,  and  comprehensive  and  unsparing  proscription.  Then, 
for  the  first  time,  the  creed  of  the  Roman  Catholic  was  made  the 
test  of  his  political  loyalty.  The  belief  in  transubstantiation  was 
taken  as  equivalent  to  disaffection,  or  rather  as  an  unfailing  indi- 
cation of  it;  and,  tried  by  this  test,  the  hitherto  unsuspected  Ro- 
man Catholic  peer  could  not  but  be  involved  in  the  general  dis- 
qualification of  his  Roman  Catholic  fellow-subjects.  Now,  he  must 
be  allowed  to  ask,  why  was  the  danger  so  much  greater  at  the 
present  moment  than  it  was  in  the  5th  of  Queen  Elizabeth — than 
it  was  from  that  time  to  the  30th  of  Charles  II.  ?  For  the  present, 
he  left  the  commoners  out  of  view;  but,  as  we  were  to  go  so 
much  by  the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors,  why  might  he  not  put  our 
older  ancestors  against  our  more  recent  ones — the  days  of  good 
Queen  Bess  against  those  of  the  second  of  the  Stuarts,  and  hum- 
bly inquire,  upon  what  imaginable  ground,  if  the  peers  of  Eliza- 
beth's time,  who  professed  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  should 
have  been  suffered  to  mix  in  affairs  of  state,  it  was  unsafe  to  ad- 
mit the  peers  at  the  present  day  ?  Upon  what  strange  apprehen- 
sion or  possibility  were  Catholic  peers  not  only  excluded,  but  de- 
prived of  their  birthright?  For,  be  it  remembered,  they  continued 


320  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

peers  of  England;  they  enjoyed  their  titles  of  precedency;  but 
they  must  not  take  their  seats  in  Parliament.  They  had  been 
summoned  to  attend  on  a  late  trial,  and  were  obliged  to  pay  the 
postage  of  letters  inviting  them;  but  they  were  not  allowed  to 
come.  It  was  safe  that  they  should  be  summoned;  but  it  was  not 
safe  to  remove  the  objections  to  their  complying,  to  their  exemp- 
tion from  postage,  and  admission  to  take  their  places.  Not  a 
word  had  been  said  in  justification  of  this  strange  inconsistency 
and  injustice.  The  peers'  right  10  sit  in  the  peers'  house,  in  fact, 
was  only  suspended.  Was  it  possible  to  conceive  this  suspension 
necessary?  Were  the  Howards  and  the  Talbots  so  degenerate 
from  the  character  of  their  ancestors  that  the  Constitution  would 
not  be  safe  if  they  were  admitted  to  the  seats  which  they  claimed 
under  that  Constitution?  So  much  as  to  the  peers,  whose  case  he 
verily  and  in  all  sincerity  felt  to  be  quite  irresistible. 

Now,  as  to  the  lions  who  were  roaring  in  our  own  lobby,  who, 
if  we  once  admitted  them,  would  turn  us  out  of  doors.  He  could 
not  reason  with  antipathies.  Some  persons  had  such  an  antipathy 
to  cats,  that  they  were  sensible  of  the  entrance  of  one  into  a  room 
before  they  saw  where  it  was  perched.  He  (Mr.  Canning)  never 
felt  annoyed  at  sitting,  as  he  often  had  done  in  that  House,  next 
to  a  dissenter.  He  really  could  feel  no  apprehension  of  that  sen- 
sitive kind.  He  would  grant,  for  the  argument,  that  one  hundred 
Catholic  members  might  be  returned,  partly  from  Ireland  and 
partly  from  England;  he  would  grant  that  they  would  combine; 
he  would  grant  that  they  would  combine  for  overturning  the  ec- 
clesiastical establishment:  but,  granting  all  this,  he  asked  how 
they  were  to  go  about  it?  It  must  be — 1,  by  force  of  reasoning;  2, 
by  force  of  numbers;  or,  3,  by  force  alone.  Was  it  that  the  elo- 
quence of  the  one  hundred  members  would  succeed  in  persuading 
gentlemen  attached  to  the  Protestant  establishment  to  join  them 
in  destroying  it,  in  order  to  make  way  for  the  magnificent  edifice 
of  mitred  popery?  Could  any  one  believe  that  the  members  who 
might,  in  consequence  of  this  bill,  be  admitted  to  seats  in  Parlia- 
ment, would  move  such  a  project?  or  could  any  one  suppose  for 
a  moment  that  the  slightest  motion  which  had  such  an  end  in 
view,  would  not  be  resisted  ? 

An  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  (Mr.  Wetherall)  had  ex- 
emplified what  the  opponents  of  the  Catholics  understood  by 
force  of  reasoning  in  a  singular  manner,  when  he  said,  the  other 
night,  with  respect  to  Archdeacon  Paley's  arguments  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Catholics,  that  if  we  were  called  upon  to  refute  the 
archdeacon,  he  would  throw  his  book  into  the  fire.  The  honour- 
able and  learned  gentleman  was,  in  this  mode  of  settling  a  dis- 
pute, only  imitating,  and  imperfectly,  the  first  great  disputant  ot 
the   reformed    religion,   Henry  VIII.;    who    challenged   a  poor 


REMOVAL  BILL.  321 

schoolmaster  to  debate  some  article  of  faith  with  him,  on  this 
condition,  that  if  he,  the  schoolmaster,  was  worsted  in  the  argu- 
ment, he  should  be  burnt  as  a  heretic.  It  was  unnecessary  to  add, 
that  victory  declared  for  the  king;  and  the  poor  schoolmaster 
was  accordingly  thrown — where  the  honourable  and  learned  gen- 
tleman proposed  only  to  throw  the  archdeacon's  book, — into  the 
fire.  Against  such  a  form  of  syllogism,  he  would  not  answer  for 
it  that  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  himself,  with  all  his 
protestantism,  would  be  proof.  But  happily,  it  was  a  form  which 
could  only  be  applied  by  those  who  possessed  a  superiority  of 
force  of  another  kind,  from  which  he  trusted,  in  this  case,  there 
was  no  apprehension  to  be  entertained.  As  to  superiority  of 
numerical  force  in  the  legislature,  it  was  really  visionary  to  ap- 
prehend it.  Look  at  the  distribution  of  property  throughout  the 
whole  United  Kingdom;  and  whence  were  the  overpowering 
numbers  of  Catholic  representatives  to  come?  As  to  physical 
force,  what  tendency  had  this  measure  to  alter  its  proportions? 
And  was  the  rejection  of  the  present  measure  the  best  means  of 
calming  any  ebullition  of  that  kind  ?  Was  it  the  safest  remedy  to 
say  to  the  Catholic,  that  you  shut  your  doors  upon  him  for  ever  ? 
It  would  be  idle  to  suppose  that  any  scheme  of  representation 
could  ever  be  so  arranged,  as  that  the  sentiments  of  every  indi- 
vidual in  the  country  should  be  directly  represented.  Few  per- 
sons had  expressed  their  opinions  to  that  effect,  more  frequently 
or  more  decidedly  than  himself.  But  still,  he  must  admit,  there 
was  a  difference  between  that  general  or  virtual  representation 
which  he  contended  ought  to  bound  the  wishes,  as  it  satisfied  the 
wants  and  protected  the  interests,  of  all  classes  of  the  community, 
and  an  absolute  exclusion  of  any  one  class  from  the  capacity  of 
representing.  He  would  ask  whether  it  was  not  carrying  the 
doctrine  of  virtual  representation  a  little  too  far,  to  say  that  the 
Catholics  were  virtually  represented,  when  the  first  oath  to  be 
taken  by  every  member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  was  one  of 
abhorrence  of  their  religion,  as  incompatible  with  the  safety  of 
the  state?  The  way  then  to  avert  the  danger  of  external  force ^S 
(granting  for  argument's  sake,  what  he  denied,  that  any  such  dan- 
ger existed)  was,  to  afford  vent  to  the  feelings  of  the  Catholic 
within  the  walls  of  Parliament;  to  give  him  the  capacity  to  re- 
present, as  well  as  that  of  being  represented;  and  thus  to  cure, 
with  respect  to  Ireland,  where  the  elective  franchise  has  already 
been  extended  to  the  Catholic,  an  anomaly  in  legislation,  which 
cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  suffered  long  to  endure. 

But  not  the  elective  franchise  only — a  privilege  of  the  utmost 
civil  importance — but  the  army  and  the  navy,  from  their  lowest  to 
their  highest  ranks,  had  been  now  opened  to  the  Catholics:  a  con- 
cession after  which  it  was  difficult  to  say  whether  it   was  more 
43 


S22  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

impolitic  or  unjust  to  continue  the  exclusion  from  civil  power, — 
to  exclude  from  seats  in  Parliament.  An  honourable  and  learned 
gentleman  had  been  mistaken,  when,  arguing  on  this  subject  on  a 
former  night,  he  had  spoken  of  this  concession  as  one  growing 
out  of  former  discussions  in  Parliament.  In  truth,  it  had  hap- 
pened, rather  than  been  contrived  or  foreseen.  It  had  come,  as 
many  blessings  do  come  upon  mankind,  in  spite  of  argument  and 
decision.  The  clangers  of  admitting  the  Catholics  to  commissions 
in  the  army  and  navy  had  been  argued  as  strenuously  in  the  last 
debates  on  this  question,  a  few  years  ago,  as  ever  before;  but  in 
the  mean  time,  the  thing  had  done  itself,  without  interference  or 
observation.  The  exclusion  of  the  Catholics  from  the  army  and 
navy  had  rested  upon  certain  oaths,  directed  by  certain  statutes 
to  be  administered  to  all  officers  in  either  force  on  receiving  their 
commissions.  By  a  lapse,  of  which  no  one  could  trace  the  date, 
these  oaths,  which  had  been  always  rigidly  enforced  in  the  navy, 
had  fallen  into  disuetude  in  the  army.  Upon  this  discrepancy  in 
the  practice  between  the  two  services  being  quite  accidentally 
discovered,  it  became  a  question  whether  the  army  should  be  re- 
called to  the  strictness  observed  in  the  navy,  or  the  navy  should 
be  put  on  the  footing  of  the  army.  The  latter  course  was  adopted, 
and  thus  was  the  service  in  both  instances  thrown  equally  open  to 
Catholic  and  Protestant  ambition.  Such  being  now  the  situation 
of  Catholics  in  this  respect,  he  would  beg  the  committee  to  con- 
sider the  grievance  which  it  must  be  to  a  Roman  Catholic,  de- 
scended of  one  of  the  great  families  of  England,  who,  following 
the  brave  example  of  his  ancestors,  had  merited  the  thanks  of  his 
country;  what  a  grievance  must  it  be  to  him,  that,  after  having 
earned  the  reward,  he  should  be  deprived  of  it  on  account  of  his 
religion.  He  would  suppose  a  Roman  Catholic  officer  to  have 
commanded  under  Nelson  at  Trafalgar,  or  under  Wellington  at 
Waterloo;  his  Protestant  leaders  and  companions  are  ennobled, 
and  take  their  seats  in  the  House  of  Peers,  but  the  Catholic,  even 
though  that  Catholic  were  the  first  in  his  rank  in  the  kingdom — 
even  though  already  in  the  rank  of  the  peerage — must  be  turned 
back  from  the  door  of  that  House,  into  which,  if  a  Protestant,  his 
valour  and  his  services  would  have  opened  the  way.  Now  this 
was  a  state  of  things  which  could  not  last.  It  was  a'  monstrous 
inconsistency  in  our  system,  and  he  conceived  that  we  could  not 
have  a  better  time  to  remove  it  than  the  present.  As  we  had  gone 
so  far  already  in  the  work  of  conciliation,  sooner  or  later  this  too 
must  be  done. 

His  right  honourable  friend  (the  Speaker)  had  supported  the 
present  clause  for  the  exclusion  of  the  Roman  Catholics  from  seats 
in  Parliament,  with  the  impression  that,  as  the  adoption  of  a  sim- 
ilar clause  had  been  fatal  to  a  similar  bill  on  a  former  occasion,  it 


REMOVAL  BILL.  323 

might  prove  so  at  the  present  moment;  but  he  hoped,  whatever 
might  be  the  result  of  this  motion — however  the  committee  might 
decide — that  it  would  not  stop  the  progress  of  the  bill.  He  trust- 
ed that,  in  whatever  shape  the  bill  might  come  from  the  commit- 
tee, unless,  indeed,  it  were  very  materially  altered,  it  would  pass 
the  House. 

It  was  said  in  the  debate  the  other  evening,  that  if  Catholics 
were  admitted  to  seats  in  Parliament,  they  might  be  admitted  as 
governors  of  colonies.  Now,  he  should  like  to  know  what  act  it 
was  which  could  prevent  the  Crown  from  the  appointment  of 
Catholics  to  the  colonies  at  the  present  moment.  He  was  not 
aware  of  any.  The  25th  of  Charles  II.  excluded  them  expressly 
and  specifically  from  being  governors  of  Guernsey  or  Jersey;  but 
if  that  was  the  act  relied  upon,  the  very  specification  of  these 
places  left  other  commands  open.  Upon  this  point,  however,  he 
was  willing  to  listen  to  any  suggestion.  He  thought  it  of  small 
importance,  compared  with  the  general  scope  and  provisions  of 
the  bill. 

With  respect  to  the  interference  of  Roman  Catholics  in  eccle- 
siastical preferments,  this  bill  expressly  and  anxiously  provided 
against  it.  The  office  of  Lord  Chancellor  of  England  was  ex- 
cepted, because  he  had  ecclesiastical  preferments  to  bestow;  as 
was,  for  the  same  reason,  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland;  and  he 
had  no  objection  to  extend  the  like  exception  to  all  places  which 
had  ecclesiastical  patronage.  But  it  was  objected,  that  a  commis- 
sion for  the  filling  up  of  ecclesiastical  appointments  would  be  a 
a  clumsy  remedy, — that  the  nomination  to  church  preferments 
rested  with  the  prime  minister,  and  that  if  he  were  deprived  of  it, 
it  would  be  taking  the  first  feather  from  his  wing. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  was  by  no  means  true  that  the  dis- 
pensation of  church  patronage  was  necessarily  vested  in  any  par- 
ticular office;  or  that  any  particular  office  necessarily  constituted 
what,  in  common  parlance,  though  not  in  the  language  of  the  Con- 
stitution, is  called  a  prime  minister.  Lord  Chatham  was  prime 
minister  when  lord  privy  seal;  and  the  patronage  of  the  church 
might,  without  any  violation  of  form  or  usage,  be  delegated  to 
any  minister  to  whom  the  Crown  pleased  to  assign  it.  Nor  was 
the  expedient  of  a  commission  to  nominate  to  church  preferments 
so  novel  and  unprecedented  a  contrivance  as  gentlemen  seemed 
willing  to  believe.  There  was  a  precedent  for  such  a  commission, 
and  in  good  times,  too,  in  a  reign,  and  by  the  act  of  a  sovereign 
whom  those  who  took  this  objection  were  particularly  bound  to 
reverence,  whose  every  act  but  this  they  were  never  weary  of 
quoting  in  these  debates — he  meant  King  William.  That  sover- 
eign, in  the  year  1695  (he  believed,  but  the  fact  was  to  be  found 
in  all  the  histories  of  the  time)   appointed  a  commission,  consist- 


324  ROMAN   CATHOLIC   DISABILITY 

ing  of  an  archbishop  and  four  bishops,  who  had  authority  to  pre- 
fer to  all  ecclesiastical  benefices  and  dignities,  and  the  reasons 
given  for  it  was  that  they  were  more  versed  in  those  apppoint- 
ments  than  the  Crown.  A  commission,  therefore,  for  the  same 
object,  at  present,  could  not  be  considered  as  a  new,  nor,  after  such 
authority  had  been  produced  for  it,  could  it  again  be  called  a  clum- 
sy contrivance. 

Another  objection,  which  he  heard  with  some  surprise,  was, 
that  Protestants  would  have  a  conscientious  scruple  about  taking 
the  oath  which  recognized  the  existence  of  Catholic  bishops. 
Hitherto,  it  was  said,  no  such  order  was  known  to  exist.  This 
he  considered  to  be  no  more  than  a  quibble.  We  admitted  the 
ordination  of  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  to  be  valid;  and  it  was  dif- 
ficult to  admit  that,  without  acknowledging  the  existence  of  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  bishop.  Nay,  more,  if  a  Roman  Catholic  priest 
should  become  a  convert  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  should 
be  presented  to  a  living  in  the  Protestant  Church,  re-ordination 
was  not  considered  necessary;  so  that  we  not  only  admitted  the 
ordination,  but  we  took  the  man  so  ordained  into  the  bosom  of  the 
church.  And  how  had  that  ordination  been  obtained  but  at  the 
hands  of  a  popish  bishop  ?  But  the  statutes  went  farther.  By  the 
11th  and  12th  William  III.,  chap.  4,  it  was  enacted,  "  that  where- 
as popish  bishops  resorted  to  this  country  in  greater  numbers  than 
formerly"  (a  pretty  clear  admission  of  their  existence,)  "  a  reward 
of  £100  would  be  given  to  any  person  informing  of  the  residence 
of  such  popish  bishop,  such  bishop  incurring  the  pain  of  perpetual 
imprisonment."  This  surely  applied  to  a  description  of  persons 
whose  existence  and  character  were  admitted.  It  was  true  that 
the  popish  bishop  would  not  fetch  his  £100  now;  for,  by  the  18th 
George  III.,  this  part  of  the  act  of  William  was  repealed.  We 
now,  therefore,  not  only  acknowledged  the  existence  of  popish 
bishops  amongst  us,  but  allowed  them  to  be  here  at  full  liberty. 
Under  these  circumstances,  he  thought  that  the  Protestant  must 
have  a  very  tender  conscience,  indeed,  who  wrould  not  take  an 
oath  which  implied  the  existence  of  Roman  Catholic  bishops. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  then  adverted  to  the  inter- 
course between  this  country  and  the  see  of  Rome,  and  asked 
whether  any  doubt  existed  as  to  that  intercourse  being  carried  on 
at  the  present  moment,  to  as  great  an  extent  as  if  there  never  had 
been  any  interdiction  at  all?  By  the  13th  of  Elizabeth  it  was 
made  treason  to  receive  any  bull,  rescript,  or  indulgence,  from  the 
see  of  Rome,  in  this  country.  But  did  a  month  or  a  week  elapse 
in  which  such  things  were  not  received  at  present?  If  it  was  right 
to  prohibit  them,  in  the  name  of  God,  let  it  be  done  effectually; 
but  if  the  intercourse  were  to  be  permitted,  what  ground  of  ob- 
jection could  there  be  for  subjecting  it  to  regulation  ?  Why  should 


REMOVAL  BILL.  325 

it  not  be  so  subjected  in  this,  as  it  was  in  all  other  countries?  They 
were  told,  indeed,  that  certain  Roman  Catholic  priests  said  that 
they  would  not  agree  to  the  measure.  He  would  ask,  if  any  other 
portion  of  His  Majesty's  subjects  would  thus  presume  to  dictate 
to  the  Parliament?  He  knew  of  no  sanctity  which  hedged  in  a 
popish  priest,  by  which  he  should  be  authorized  to  interpose  his 
private  judgment,  or  his  private  conscience,  between  the  benevo- 
lence of  the  legislature  and  the  wishes  of  his  fellow  subjects.  The 
Roman  Catholic  peers  had  expressed  their  willingness  to  take  the 
oath  prescribed  (three  of  them,  he  understood,  were  prevented 
by  absence  from  signing  the  petition,)  and  he  would  confidently 
act  upon  their  opinion.  The  priest  might  clamour  if  he  pleased; 
he  might  roar,  like  the  tyrant  of  old,  in  one  of  his  own  bulls;  but 
what  was  the  loss  of  his  influence  and  patronage,  compared  with 
the  mighty  and  unspeakable  benefit  to  be  derived  from  bringing 
under  one  common  bond  of  union  the  whole  mass  of  Catholic  and 
Protestant  population?  He  hoped  the  House  would  not  be  deter- 
red by  such  attempts,  from  giving  to  the  Roman  Catholic  peers 
of  this  country  their  birthright,  and  admitting  the  fair  claims  of 
the  other  portion  of  the  Catholic  community. 

It  was  his  anxious  wish  to  see  this  great  question  happily  set 
at  rest;  the  great  body  of  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy  and  laity 
were  ready  to  join  in  the  measures  necessary  for  the  contentment 
and  satisfaction  of  Protestant  scruples.  He  admitted  that  the 
change  was  an  important  one;  but  it  would  be  a  change  of  pro- 
gression, not  of  revulsion:  it  had  for  its  object  the  reconcilement 
of  both  parties,  and  in  their  union  the  better  security  of  the  in- 
terests of  both.  The  present  period  was  peculiarly  favourable. 
After  a  season  of  storms  there  was  one  gleam  of  sunshine:  let  the 
House  take  advantage  of  it;  and  let  them  not  counteract  what  ought 
to  be  its  effect,  by  casting  millions  back  into  gloom  and  despair. 

The  committee  divided — 

For  Mr.  Bankes's  amendment         -        -        -        211 
Against  it 223 

Majority  12 


APRIL  2d,  1821. 


Mr.  Canning,  in  the  course  of"  the  debate  on  the  third  reading  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Disability  Removal  Bill  spoke  to  the  following  effect : — 

Mr.  Canning  observed,  that  his  right  honourable  friend  (Mr. 
Peel)  who  had  taken  so  active  a  part  against  the  bill,  complained, 
that  those  who  took  the  same  side  as  himself  laboured  under 
greal   disadvantages,  seeing  that  they  were  unfairly  called   upon 

DD 


•326  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

to  become  the  champions  of  those  laws  which  had  existed  against 
the  Catholics  from  the  Reformation  to  the  present  time.  But  he 
(Mr.  C.)  felt,  on  the  other  hand,  that  those  who  took  that  part  in 
favour  of  the  bill,  which,  from  conviction,  he  had  found  himself 
compelled  to  take,  were  placed  in  a  situation  equally  difficult;  for 
it  was  assumed,  that  every  argument  which  they  brought  forward 
was  an  attempt  to  disturb  the  peace  which  had  hitherto  prevailed, 
and  to  launch  out  into  an  untried  sea  of  speculation.  He  claimed, 
then,  for  the  advocates  of  the  bill,  that  the  system  which  they 
wished  to  introduce  should  be  compared,  not  with  an  uniform 
and  recognized  system,  but  with  admitted  anomalies,  with  the 
state  of  things  which  had  produced  the  recent  innovations.  His 
right  honourable  friend  deprecated  a  recurrence  to  that  period 
when  the  laws  against  the  Catholics  had  been  in  their  full  force. 
He  would  not  resist  the  appeal,  because  he  felt  unwilling  at  the 
close  of  a  debate  which  had  been  marked  by  such  unexampled 
moderation,  to  create  any  new  source  of  contention,  or  to  send 
forth  the  bill  to  the  country  as  a  firebrand  instead  of  an  extin- 
guisher of  discord.  If,  like  his  right  honourable  friend,  he  could 
believe  that  religious  animosities  would  be  more  likely  to  be 
healed,  and  the  excluded  Catholic  more  likely  to  be  contented,  if 
this  bill  should  not  pass,  he  should  be  satisfied  not  to  press  the 
House  to  a  completion  of  the  present  measure;  forasmuch  as  the 
great  object  which  he  had  at  heart  in  the  support  which  it  was 
in  his  limited  power  to  give  to  it,  would  then  be  accomplished. 
Nay,  if  the  question  were  as  to  a  system  of  which  the  reason  was 
well  matured,  or  the  antiquity  long  established — as  to  laws  which 
had  not  been  continually  changed,  and  as  to  circumstances  which 
had  not  gradually  varied — if  it  had  been  proposed  to  destroy  that 
which  was  tolerable,  in  favour  of  a  fancied  amelioration,  he  ad- 
mitted that  in  such  case  a  heavy  burthen  of  proof  would  indeed 
be  thrown  upon  the  supporters  of  the  bill.  But  the  measure  pro- 
posed was  to  be  compared  only  with  imaginary  content  and  ficti- 
tious tranquillity;  it  was  another  change  in  laws  which  had  been 
continually  changing;  it  was  not  the  first  of  a  series,  but  a  crown- 
ing act  of  mercy  to  complete  the  improvements  of  half  a  century. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman  then  examined  the  view  which 
Mr.  Peel  had  taken  of  the  different  eras  of  legislation,  respecting 
the  Catholics;  he  denied  that  even  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution 
the  dangers  were  such  as  warranted  the  system  pursued  towards 
the  Catholics;  but  surely  the  dangers  which  then  did  exist,  now 
existed  no  longer.  Religion  had  then  mingled  in  the  political 
concerns  of  Europe,  and  directed  the  course  of  wars,  and  changed 
the  dynasties  of  kingdoms.  Now,  struggles  of  a  quite  different 
nature  had  begun,  which  were  destined,  perhaps,  to  produce  ef- 
fects as  stupendous  as  the  wars  which  followed  the  Reformation. 


REMOVAL  BILL.  327 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  then  went  on  to  argue,  that  it 
was  to  be  gathered  from  the  murmurs  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
clergy,  that  at  least  this  bill  might  be  considered  a  boon  to  the 
laity;  that  its  provisions  were  not  of  that  character  which  some 
of  its  enemies  represented;  and  that  the  Catholic  clergy  did  not 
look  upon  the  bill  as  causing  so  much  evil  to  the  established  Pro- 
testant Church  of  Ireland,  as  the  House  was  called  upon  to  ap- 
prehend from  it.  Depend  upon  it,  if  the  character  of  the  bill 
was  what  its  adversaries  represented  it,  and  if  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic clergy  were  also  as  ardent  for  the  prosperity  of  their  own 
church,  and  as  wise  in  their  generation,  as  they  were  argued  by 
the  same  authority,  and  admitted  by  him,  to  be — any  little  dis- 
content which  thev  might  have  felt  from  the  fear  of  a  diminution 
of  their  influence  over  their  flocks,  would  have  been  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  the  contemplation  of  the  advantage  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  operation  of  the  bill,  to  the  exaltation  of  the  pop- 
ish, at  the  expense  of  the  Protestant  establishment  and  hierarchy. 
The  murmurs  of  the  more  violent  Roman  Catholic  prelates  were, 
therefore,  to  him  (Mr.  Canning)  one  conclusive  indication  of  the 
probable  tendency  of  the  bill  to  confirm  and  consolidate  the  Pro- 
testant Church  in  Ireland. 

He  next  touched  upon  the  number  of  Catholic  members  that 
were  likely  to  be  introduced  by  it  into  Parliament,  contending,  in 
contradiction  to  the  opponents  of  the  measure,  that  instead  of 
seventy  from  Ireland,  and  thirty  from  England,  the  utmost  that 
would  probably  be  returned  would  be  a  dozen  in  the  whole. 
Admitting,  however,  as  he  had,  in  a  former  debate,  for  argument 
sake,  that  more  might  obtain  entrance — allowing  even  that  the 
vision  of  the  hundred  knights  was  to  be  realized — still  he  asked 
in  what  way  would  they  be  able  to  set  about  the  destruction  of 
the  Constitution?  The  other  side,  who  talked  so  much  of  danger, 
was  bound  to  show  from  whence  it  would  proceed,  and  how  it 
would  operate — in  what  way  the  Catholic  representatives  would 
succeed  in  corrupting  the  rest  of  the  568  members,  or  at  least  the 
whole  of  the  minorities  on  the  late  divisions  on  this  subject,  and 
the  greater  part  of  the  supporting  majorities. 

He  contended  that  the  measure  was  eminently  calculated  to 
conciliate  the  Irish,  and  to  cement  the  Union;  the  recentness  of 
which  was  to  be  considered  as  an  advantage  instead  of  an  objec- 
tion, inasmuch  as  expectations  indulged  since  that  event  were  now 
to  be  realized;  promises  and  pledges  were  to  be  fulfilled  before 
hope  should  have  been  so  delayed  as  to  make  sick  the  heart.  In 
the  Union,  then,  he  found  one  of  the  strongest  reasons  for  enact- 
ing the  bill.  For  what  was  the  state  of  Ireland  in  its  relation  to 
this  country?  Of  fifteen  millions  of  subjects,  five  were  separated 
from  the  rest,  divided  from  the  general  body  by  the  channel. 


328  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

"  How,"  said  the  honourable  gentleman,  "  are  we  to  deal  with 
them?"  Yes,  that  is  the  question  on  which  depended  all.  To 
that  consideration  we  must  come  at  last,  whether  this  bill  were 
thrown  out  here  or  elsewhere.  In  that  separated  island  were  to 
be  found  four  millions  of  Roman  Catholics;  and  one  million  of 
Protestants,  placed  as  garrisons  in  an  enemy's  territory;  of  which 
last  million,  one-half  were  the  dreaded  dissenters,  from  whom 
so  much  danger  had  been  feared.  Should  we,  then,  incorporate 
the  hearts  and  feelings  of  four  millions  of  Catholics,  in  the  same 
manner  as  we  had  incorporated  their  laws,  their  commerce,  and 
their  institutions?  Should  we  unite  them  to  Great  Britain  firmly 
and  effectually?  or,  by  a  mistaken  policy,  coerce  them  in  propor- 
tion to  our  danger?  After  half  a  century  of  concessions,  should  we 
now  stop  short;  and  referring  to  the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors  in 
the  period  preceding  those  concessions,  should  we,  after  having 
again  conquered  the  Irish,  again  degrade  them  into  helots,  in  order 
that  we  might  fear  nothing,  unless  a  servile  war?  No  man  had 
openly  avowed  that  policy.  The  system  of  laws  formerly  devised 
to  bring  to  completion  that  odious  project,  and  the  effects  produ- 
ced by  it,  no  human  being  was  willing  to  revive.  That  time  was 
past,  the  question  was  not  now,  as  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign 
of  George  III.,  between  the  maintenance  of  that  system,  and  a 
beginning  of  a  milder  policy;  but  between  the  memory  of  that 
.system,  and  the  completion  of  the  benevolent  legislation  of  the 
reign  of  George  III.,  by  raising  those  who  were  its  victims  to  the 
level  of  ourselves. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman*  who  had  introduced  this  bill, 
with  an  eloquent  precision  that  would  not  have  disgraced  Tacitus, 
pointed  out  in  his  speech,  as  in  a  funeral  procession,  the  statues  of 
those  great  orators  who  had  distinguished  themselves  on  this  ques- 
tion. Among  the  names  he  (Mr.  Canning)  had  missed  one,t  now 
no  more,  never  second  in  the  zeal  of  his  resistance,  but  whose 
place  had  this  evening,  for  the  first  time,  been  amply  supplied  by 
an  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  (Mr.  Ellis,  of  Dublin)  from 
the  same  country;  indeed,  so  amply  and  efficiently,  so  much  in 
the  spirit  and  manner  of  the  great  original,  that  little  was  left 
to  be  desired,  as  applied  to  that  honourable  substitute,  he  might, 
perhaps,  be  allowed  to  parody  two  well  known  lines: 

"  The  tone,  the  topics  opening  to  my  view, 
Methinks  I  see  my  Duigenan  here  anew!" 

*  Mr.  Plunkett. 

|  Doctor  Duigenan,  who,  though  a  most  violent  opponent  of  the  claims  of  the 
Catholics,  was  married  to  a  Catholic  lady,  had  a  Catholic  chaplain  constantly 
resident  in  his  family,  and  is  supposed  to  have  died  a  member  of  that  religious 
persuasion. 


REMOVAL  BILL,.  329 

He  must  observe,  however,  that  in  one  part  of  his  argument,  in 
one  only,  that  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  had  been  some- 
what unfair.  He  had  objected  to  the  bill  as  a  fault,  that  it  con- 
tained a  clause,  excluding  Roman  Catholics  from  several  parochial 
offices;  a  petty  species  of  legislation  in  the  honourable  and  learned 
gentleman's  view,  and  altogether  unworthy  of  so  great  a  subject. 
Now,  surely,  the  honourable  gentleman  who  had  watched  the 
progress  of  the  bill  with  so  much  solicitude,  must  know  that  this 
fault,  if  it  be  one,  was  not  the  fault  of  the  framers  of  the  bill;  that 
this  merit,  if  merit  it  were,  was  wholly  attributable  to  the  zeal  of 
his  right  honourable  friend,  the  honourable  and  learned  gentle- 
man's leader  in  these  combats  (Mr.  Peel;)  who  foreseeing  with 
admirable  prescience  that  danger  to  all  the  affairs  of  the  parish,  to 
which  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  appeared  most  unac- 
countably insensible,  had  provided  by  this  special  clause  for  their 
protection.  His  right  honourable  friend,  (Mr.  Peel)  would,  he 
was  sure,  give  him  (Mr.  Canning)  due  credit  for  his  forbearance 
in  not  having  before  taken  any  notice  of  this  mighty  effort  of 
legislation.  It  was  very,  very  tempting;  but  he  had  purposely 
forborne;  though  certainly  nothing  since  the  famous  memoirs  of 
P.  P.,  clerk  of  the  parish,  had  exhibited  so  fine  a  specimen  of  pa- 
rochial politics.  But  to  have  this  clause  fathered  upon  the  framers 
of  this  bill,  and  by  one  of  its  own  near  relations,  was  more  than 
flesh  and  blood  could  bear.  His  right  honourable  friend  must  for- 
give him,  if,  upon  such  a  provocation,  he  could  not  abstain  from 
swearing  it  to  its  true  parent. 

It  was,  however,  a  consolatory  circumstance  to  see  how  his 
right  honourable  friend's  arguments  against  the  measure  before  the 
House  had  dwindled.  Formerly,  nothing  was  heard  of,  in  con- 
junction with  this  measure,  but  a  tottering  throne,  a  trembling 
crown,  a  shaking  sceptre;  but  now  the  chief  danger  was  described 
as  threatening  parish  officers;  formerly  the  apalling  question  was, 
how,  after  such  a  bill  had  passed,  should  we  be  able  to  support  the 
Church  Establishment?  now,  it  is  only  how  shall  we  repair  the 
parish  church?  Comparative  trifles  now  occupied  one  who  before 
had  dealt  only  with  the  most  magnificent  declarations. 

-"  Nunc  reges,  atque  tetrarchas, 


Omnia  magna  loquens; — Nunc — 
Vestries  atque  Churchwardens .'" 

He  trusted  that  a  grateful  posterity  would  remember,  with  be- 
coming honour,  the  legislators  who  had  wisely  placed  such  guards, 
not  round  the  church,  but  round  its  overseers.  Let  not  the  House, 
however,  be  impeded  by  the  smaller  obstacles,  any  more  than  by 
those  which  are  now  removed:  let  it  not,  in  its  full  march  to  the 
liberation  of  five  millions  of  fellow  subjects,  be  stopped  at  the  top 

44  DD* 


330  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DISABILITY 

of  the  hill,  and  turned  back  by  his  right  honourable  friend  and 
his  churchwarden. 

Referring  now  to  some  general  considerations,  the  right  hon- 
ourable gentleman  expressed  his  decided  opinion  that  the  provi- 
sion for  the  Catholic  clergy  ought  to  be  made  a  matter  of  subse- 
quent consideration.     He  desired  the  House  to  contemplate  the 
Catholics  in  their  real   character,  maintaining  that  a  priori,  a 
Church  of  England  man  would  be  more  ready  to  admit  to  equal 
privileges  one  who  disagreed  merely  on  such  a  speculative  matter 
as  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  than   one  who  denied  the 
great  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  atonement,  and 
the  divinity  of  the  Saviour.     Yet  every  day  dissenters  were  ad- 
mitted to  take  the  oath  at  the  table,  and  to  share  the  honours  and 
labours  of  legislation;  there  were  more  points  of  agreement  be- 
tween the  Church  of  England  man  and  the  Catholic,  than  between 
the  Church  of  England  man  and  many  of  the  dissenters.     If  the 
House  went  back  to  times  of  dangers  and  of  terrors,  was  there 
more  dread  to  be  apprehended  of  the  renewal  of  the  fires  of  Smith- 
field,  as  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  than  was  to  be  feared  of  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  acts  of  the  Covenanters  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  ? 
The  character  of  the  modern  Roman  Catholics  was  not  to  be 
sought  from  the  preambles  of  the  acts  of  Elizabeth,  James  I.,  or 
Charles  II.,  but  from  the  preambles  of  the  acts  which  had  passed 
both  in  the  English  and  Irish  Parliaments  since  1778.     Let  not 
the  House,  then,  dwell  only  on  points  of  difference,  without  ad- 
verting also  to  those  of  resemblance:  let  it  recollect  that  Catholics 
and  Protestants  were  fellow  Christians;  that  they  were  fellow  sub- 
jects; that  their  blood  was  mingled  in  marriages;  that  it  had  often 
been  mingled  in  the  field;  that  the  Catholic  had  gone  before  the 
Protestant  in  resistance  to  foreign  dominion;  that  together  they 
had   framed  and  supported   the  Constitution,  and  together  they 
ought  to  enjoy  it.     The  time  was  now  come  when  public  feeling 
was  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  concession,  provided  it  were  tem- 
perately carried,  and  provided  those  whom  it  was  intended  to  re- 
lieve, did  not  dash  the  cup  from  their  lips.     For  the  temper  of 
Parliament  he  could  answer;  but  for  the  temper  of  the  Catholic 
clergy  he  could  not  be  a  guarantee.    If,  however,  they  had  a  spark 
of  patriotism,  or  if  they  felt  that  love  for  their  flocks  which  they 
pretended,  they  would  not  impede  the  progress  of  legislation  by 
hopeless  and  interminable  agitation!    By  conjuring  the  House  to 
pass  this  bill,  regardless  of  those  angry  squabbles  without  doors 
and  petty  difficulties  within,  which  must  encompass  every  meas- 
ure of  such  magnitude,  he  conjured  them  not  to  stop  short  from 
any  feelings  of  false  pride — not  to  incur  the  responsibility  of 
having  taught  a  people  to  seek  for  general  peace  at  their  hands, 
and  of  then  forcing  them  to  retire  back  upon  themselves.     Let  us 


REMOVAL  BILL.  331 

rather,  in  the  language  of  both  liturgies,  exclaim  sursum  corda! 
Let  us  raise  our  hearts  to  the  Dispenser  of  all  Good,  and  with 
that  elevation  of  soul,  let  us  proceed  in  that  great  work  which  we 
have  begun,  and  which,  sooner  or  later,  will  find  its  own  way  to 
the  final  consummation,  so  devoutly  to  be  wished  by  all  good 
men.  The  conclusion  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  speech 
was  loudly  and  ardently  cheered. 

The  House  divided : — 

Ayes 216 

Noes 197 

Majority  for  the  third  reading  of  the  bill        19 
The  bill  was  then  read  a  third  time  and  passed. 


332 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

APRIL  25th,  1822. 

Lord  J.  Russell  moved  "  That  the  present  state  of  the  representation  of 
the  people  in  Parliament  requires  the  most  serious  consideration  of  the  House." 

Several  members  rose  at  the  same  time  with  Mr.  Canning,  but  the  call  for 
Mr.  Canning  was  so  loud  and  prevalent  that  they  gave  way. 

Mr.  Canning. — In  obeying  the  call  which  the  House  has  done 
me  the  honour  to  make  upon  me,  I  should  be  unwilling  to  occupy 
their  attention  for  any  length  of  time,  upon  a  subject  with  respect 
to  which   my  opinions   are   sufficiently  notorious,  were  it  not  for 
the  pointed  manner  in  which  I  have  been  alluded  to  by  the  noble 
lord  (Lord  Folkstone,)  who  has  lately  addressed  them.    That  no- 
ble lord  has  challenged  me  either  to  support  my  old  opinions  by 
new  arguments,  or  to  abandon   them.     He  describes  himself  as 
having  been  converted  by  my  former  arguments  against  Parlia- 
mentary Reform,  to  an  opinion  in  favour  of  it;  and  in  his  own 
conversion  to  a  creed  which  he  had  before  rejected,  he  fancies 
himself  entitled  to  carry  me  with  him,  and  to  make  me  a  prose- 
lyte against  myself.     Those  arguments  of  mine  which  have  pro- 
duced this  unfortunate  and  unforeseen  effect  upon  the  noble  lord's 
understanding,  have  been  long  before  the  public:  and  I  have  no 
disposition  to  complain  that  the  noble  lord  has  referred  to  them 
as  pointedly  and  particularly  as  if  they  had  been  uttered  in  the 
debate  of  this  night.     It  was  natural  too,  perhaps,  that  the  noble 
lord,  with  the  ardour  of  a  convert,  should  flatter  himself  that  his 
new-born  zeal  would  extend  to  all  around   him:  but  I  must  beg 
leave  to  say,  that  the  noble  lord  has  carried  his  expectations  a  lit- 
tle too  far,  when  he  desires  me  to  read  my  own  speeches  back- 
wards; and  avow  myself,  if  not  a  confirmed  democrat,  at  least  a 
friend  to  moderate  reform.     With  the  permission  of  the  House,  I 
will  state,  in  as  few  words  as  possible,  the  grounds  on  which  I 
continue  to  hold  the  same  opinions  which  I  have  heretofore  pro- 
fessed; and  to  draw  from  them  the  same  conclusion. 

Never,  Sir,  could  those  opinions  be  advanced  under  more  fa- 
vourable auspices — never  could  a  conviction  of  their  truth  and 
justness  be  expressed  with  better  assurance  of  a  favourable  recep- 
tion than  on  the  present  occasion;  when  we  have  just  been  in- 
formed by  the  noble  marquis  (Marquis  of  Tavistock,)  in  present- 
ing a  petition  for  Parliamentary  Reform,  that  the  whole  body  of 
the  nobility,  of  the  gentry,  of  the  clergy,  of  the  magistracy,  of 
the  leading  and  opulent  commercial  classes — in  short,  that  the 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  333 

great  mass  of  the  property  and  intelligence  of  the  country,  is  ar- 
rayed against  that  question.  To  this  singular  and  valuable  admis- 
sion of  the  noble  marquis  (singular  as  to  the  opportunity  chosen 
for  declaring  it,  and  the  more  valuable  for  that  singularity)  have 
been  added  others,  not  less  striking,  on  the  part  of  the  noble  pro- 
poser of  the  motion.  The  noble  lord  (Lord  John  Russell,)  while 
contending  for  a  change  which  he  declares  to  be  necessary  for  the 
salvation  of  the  state,  but  which  he  admits  to  be  a  change  serious 
and  extensive  in  its  nature,  has  acknowledged  that  under  the  ex- 
isting system,  the  country  has  grown  in  power,  in  wealth,  in 
knowledge,  and  in  general  prosperity.  He  has  detailed,  accu- 
rately and  laboriously,  the  particulars  of  this  gradual  and  sensible 
improvement;  and  he  has  further  acknowledged,  that  in  pro- 
portion to  the  progress  of  that  improvement,  a  silent  moral 
change  has  been  operated  upon  the  conduct  of  this  House — 
which  is  now,  he  allows,  greatly  more  susceptible  of  the  influ- 
ence of  popular  feeling  and  of  the  impressions  of  public  opinion, 
than  it  was  a  century  ago.  Nay,  he  has  gone  farther  still.  He 
has — in  anticipation  of  an  argument  which  I  perhaps  might  have 
used,  if  the  noble  lord  had  not  suggested  it,  but  which  I  am  glad 
to  take  at  his  hands — expressed  a  doubt,  or  at  least  has  shown  it 
to  be  very  doubtful,  whether  a  more  implicit  obsequiousness  to 
popular  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Commons,  would 
produce  unqualified  good:  avowing  his  own  belief  that  if  the 
composition  of  the  House  had  been  altered  at  the  Revolution,  the 
purposes  of  the  Revolution  would  not  have  been  accomplished — 
the  House  of  Hanover  would  never  have  been  seated  upon  the 
throne.  The  composition  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  now  pre- 
cisely what  it  was  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution.  Whatever 
change  there  may  be  in  its  temper,  is,  by  the  noble  lord's  ac- 
knowledgment, towards  a  more  ready  obedience  to  the  public 
opinion.  But  if  the  House  of  Commons  had  at  the  time  of  the 
Revolution  been  implicitly  obedient  to  the  people;  in  other 
words,  if  the  House  had  been  then  entirely  composed  of  mem- 
bers popularly  elected — that  great  event,  to  which  I  am  as  willing 
as  the  noble  lord  to  attribute  the  establishment  of  our  liberties, 
would,  according  to  the  noble  lord's  declared  belief,  have  been  in 
all  probability  defeated. 

Surely  these  admissions  of  the  noble  lord  are  in  no  small  de- 
gree at  variance  with  his  motion.  Surely  such  admissions,  if  not 
ample  enough  of  themselves  to  overbalance  the  direct  arguments 
which  the  noble  lord  has,  in  the  subsequent  part  of  his  speech, 
brought  forward  in  the  support  of  that  motion,  do  at  least  relieve 
me  from  much  of  the  difficulty  and  odium  which  might  other- 
wise have  belonged  to  an  opposition  to  Parliamentary  Reform. 
If  I  contend  in  behalf  of  the  constitution  of  the  House  of  Com- 


334  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

mons,  such  as  it  is,  I  contend  at  least  for  no  untried,  no  discredit- 
ed, no  confessedly  pernicious  establishment.  I  contend  for  a 
House  of  Commons,  the  spirit  of  which,  whatever  be  its  frame, 
has,  without  any  forcible  alteration,  gradually,  but  faithfully,  ac- 
commodated itself  to  the  progressive  spirit  of  the  country;  and 
in  the  frame  of  which,  if  an  alteration  such  as  the  noble  lord  now 
proposes,  had  been  made  a  hundred  and  thirty  years  ago,  the 
House  of  Commons  of  that  day  would,  by  his  own  confession, 
have  been  disabled  from  accomplishing  the  glorious  Revolution, 
and  securing  the  fruits  of  it  to  their  posterity. 

Thus  fortified,  I  have  the  less  difficulty  in  meeting  the  noble 
lord's  motion  in  front — in  giving  at  once  a  plain  and  direct  nega- 
tive to  the  general  resolution,  which  is  the  basis  of  his  whole 
plan.  I  do  not  acknowledge  the  existence  of  the  necessity,  which 
by  that  resolution  is  declared  to  exist,  for  taking  into  considera- 
tion, with  a  view  to  alteration  and  amendment,  the  present  state 
of  the  representation  of  the  people  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
Knowing  as  I  do,  that  what  is  in  the  contemplation  of  many  per- 
sons who  are  calling  for  reform,  could  not  be  adopted;  and  not 
knowing  what  may  be  the  ideas  and  designs  of  others;  feeling  an 
equal  repugnance,  both  from  what  I  know  and  what  I  do  not 
know  upon  this  subject,  to  a  doubtful  and  equivocal  proposition, 
which  would  have  the  effect  of  binding  this  House  to  enter  into 
the  consideration  of  an  endless  succession  of  schemes  for  pur- 
poses altogether  indefinite;  I  object  in  the  very  outset  to  the  no- 
ble lord's  general  resolution,  independently  of  any  objection 
which  I  may  feel  to  his  particular  plan. 

Not,  however,  that  the  plan  itself  is  not  abundantly  fertile  of 
objections.  So  far  as  I  understand  it,  that  plan  is  little  more  than 
to  make  an  addition  of  one  hundred  members  to  this  House,  to 
be  returned  by  the  counties  and  larger  towns;  and  to  open  the 
way  for  this  augmentation,  by  depriving  each  of  the  smaller  bo- 
roughs of  one  half  of  the  elective  franchise  which  they  now  en- 
joy. This  plan  the  noble  lord  has  introduced  and  recommended 
with  an  enumeration  of  names  whose  authority  he  assumes  to  be 
in  favour  of  it.  Amongst  those  names  is  that  of  Mr.  Pitt.  But 
the  House  must  surely  be  aware  that  the  plan  brought  forward  by 
Mr.  Pitt  differed  widely,  not  only  in  detail,  but  in  principle,  from 
that  propounded  on  this  occasion  by  the  noble  lord.  True  it  is 
that  the  object  of  Mr.  Pitt's  plan  was,  like  that  of  the  noble  lord's, 
to  add  one  hundred  members  to  this  House:  but  this  object  was 
to  be  attained  without  the  forcible  abolition  of  any  existing  right 
of  election.  Mr.  Pitt  proposed  to  establish  a  fund  of  £1,000,000 
to  be  applied  to  the  purchase  of  franchises  from  such  decayed 
boroughs  as  should  be  loillins;  to  sell  them,  This  fund  was  to 
accumulate  at  compound  interest,  till   an  adequate   inducement 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  335 

was  provided  for  the  voluntary  surrender,  by  the  proprietors,  of 
such  elective  franchises  as  it  might  be  thought  expedient  to  abol- 
ish. There  was,  throughout  the  whole  of  Mr.  Pitt's  plan,  a  stu- 
dious avoidance  of  coercion;  a  careful  preservation  of  vested  in- 
terests; and  a  fixed  determination  not  to  violate  existing  rights  in 
accomplishing  its  object.  It  was  hoped  that  by  these  means  ev7ery 
sense  of  injury  or  danger  would  be  excluded,  and  that  the  change 
in  view  would  be  brought  about  by  a  gradual  process,  resembling 
the  silent  and  insensible  operation  of  time.  Here,  then,  I  repeat 
it,  is  a  difference  of  the  most  essential  kind  between  the  two  pro- 
positions of  Mr.  Pitt  and  of  the  noble  lord;  a  difference,  not  su- 
perficial, but  fundamental;  as  complete  indeed  as  the  difference 
between  concession  and  force,  or  between  respect  for  property 
and  spoliation.  I  am  not,  however,  bound  nor  at  all  prepared  to 
contend  for  the  intrinsic  or  absolute  excellence  of  Mr.  Pitt's  plan; 
and  still  less  to  engage  my  own  support  to  such  a  plan,  if  it  were 
to  be  brought  forward  at  the  present  time.  But  placing  it  in  fair 
comparison  with  the  noble  lord's,  I  must  entreat  the  House  to 
bear  in  mind  that  Mr.  Pitt  never  lost  sight  of  the  obligation  to 
preserve  as  well  as  to  amend;  that  he  proposed  not  to  enforce 
any  reluctant  surrender;  nor  to  sacrifice  any  other  than  voluntary 
victims  on  the  altar  of  practical  improvement. 

The  noble  lord  has  cited  other  grave  authorities  in  favour  of 
his  projected  reform.  Now,  I  hold  in  my  hand  an  extract  from 
a  work  which  probably  will  be  recognised  as  I  read  it,  but  the 
title  of  which  I  will  not  disclose  in  the  first  instance.  Hear  the 
opinion  of  an  eminent  writer  on  the  right  of  Parliament  to  inter- 
fere with  the  elective  franchise: — "  As  to  cutting  away  the  rotten 
boroughs,  I  am  as  much  offended  as  any  man,  at  seeing  so  many 
of  them  under  the  direct  influence  of  the  Crown,  or  at  the  dispo- 
sal of  private  persons.  Yet  I  own  I  have  both  doubts  and  appre- 
hensions in  regard  to  the  remedy  you  propose.  I  shall  be  charged, 
perhaps,  with  an  unusual  want  of  political  intrepidity,  when  I 
honestly  confess  to  you,  that  I  am  startled  at  the  idea  of  so  ex- 
tensive an  amputation.  In  the  first  place,  I  question  the  power 
de  jure  of  the  Legislature  to  disfranchise  a  number  of  boroughs, 
upon  the  general  ground  of  improving  the  Constitution." — "  I 
consider  it  as  equivalent  to  robbing  the  parties  concerned  of  their 
freehold,  of  their  birth-right  I  say,  that  although  this  birth- 
right may  be  forfeited,  or  the  exercise  of  it  suspended  in  particu- 
lar cases,  it  cannot  be  taken  away  by  a  general  law,  for  any  real 
or  pretended  purpose  of  improving  the  Constitution."  Is  it  from 
Sir  Robert  Filmer, — is  il  from  the  works  of  some  blind,  servile, 
bigotted,  Tory  writer,  thai  I  quote  the  passage  which  I  have  now 
read?  No;  it  is  from  an  author  whose  name,  indeed,  I  am  not 
enabled  to  declare,  but  the  shadow  of  whose  name  is  inseparably 


336  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

connected,  in  our  minds,  with  an  ardent  if  not  intemperate  zeal 
in  the  cause  of  political  freedom.  It  is  Junius,  who  thus  expresses 
his  fears  on  the  subject  of  interfering  with  the  existing  franchises 
of  election,  even  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  what  he  deems,  with 
the  noble  lord,  a  beneficial  change  in  the  construction  of  the 
House  of  Commons. 

The  plan  devised  by  Mr.  Pitt,  and  the  sentiments  of  this  cele- 
brated writer,  equally  furnish  a  contrast  to  the  proposition  of  the 
noble  lord;  which  is  in  effect  forcibly  to  take  away  the  elective 
franchise  from  one  body  of  the  people  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
it  to  another;  and  to  inflict  forfeiture  without  guilt  and  without 
compensation. 

But,  even  if  I,  and   others  who  think  like  me,  could  be  won 
over  to  this  plan  by  its  vaunted   moderation, — by  the  circum- 
stance of  its  going  only  half  the  length  of  the  more  sweeping  re- 
form deprecated  by  Junius, — it  does   much  surprise  me  that  the 
noble  lord  should  imagine  that  such  half  measures  would  appear 
satisfactory  to  reformers.     Surely,  surely  that  class  of  persons 
upon  whom  the  noble  lord  reckons  for  support,  and  whom  he 
considers  as  having  of  late  so  greatly  increased  in  numbers,  look 
for  a  very  different  measure  of  alteration  from  that  which  seems 
to  bound  the  noble  lord's  present  intentions.     How  happens  it, 
for  instance,  that  the  noble  lord,  notwithstanding  the  accuracy  of 
research  with  which  he  has  apparently  studied  the  subject  in  all 
its  parts,  has  omitted  any  mention  of  burgage  tenures?  He  cannot 
but  know  that  it  is  against  that  species  of  election  that  the  popu- 
lar clamour  has  been  most  loudly  directed.     Yet,  amidst  all  the 
noble  lord's  enumeration  of  rights  and  modes  of  election,  of  free- 
hold and  copyhold,  of  large  towns,  and  small  towns,  and  counties, 
and  villages,  the  words  "  burgage  tenure,"  have  never  once  es- 
caped his  lips!     Does  the  noble  lord  mean  to  take  away  burgage 
tenure,  or  does  he  not?    If  he  does  not,  I  will  so  far  most  cor- 
dially join  with  him:  but  let  not  the  noble  lord,  in  that  case,  ex- 
pect the  support  of  those  reformers  with  whom  he  has  recently 
allied  himself.     If  he  intends  to  pursue  a  double  or  a  doubtful 
course;   if  he   proposes  to  mitigate  his  violation  of  franchise  in 
the  hands  of  the  present  holders  by  taking  only  half  away,  and 
hopes,  by  giving  only  half,  to  propitiate  the  new  acquirers, — it 
may  be  very  presumptuous  in  me  to  pronounce  an  opinion  upon 
a  scheme  which  the  noble  lord  must  no  dcubt  have  turned  and 
viewed  in  every  light  before  he  made  up  his  mind  to  adopt  it; 
but  I  do  venture  to  opine,  that  in  thus  endeavouring  to  keep 
terms  with  both  parties,  he  will  in  the  end  satisfy  neither.     The 
one  will  be  as  little  contented  with  what  is  granted  to  them,  as 
the  other  will  be  reconciled  to  what  they  lose.     Needs  there  any 
further  argument  to  show,  that  whatever  may  be  the  feasibility 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  337 

of  other  plans  of  reform,  this  of  the  noble  lord  is  one  which  can- 
not possibly  be  useful  to  any  purpose,  because  it  cannot  be  palata- 
ble to  any  party? 

It  being  plain  then  to  demonstration  that  the  noble  lord's  plan 
cannot  succeed,  the  House  must  prepare  itself,  if  his  first  Resolu- 
tion should  be  carried,  to  enter  immediately  upon  the  discussion 
of  a  variety  of  schemes,  upon  a  concurrence  of  opinions  in  favour 
of  any  one  of  which  it  would  be  vain  to  speculate.  Plan  will 
follow  plan;  all  unlike  each  other  in  every  respect,  except  in  their 
tendency  to  destroy  the  present  frame  of  the  Constitution.  It  is 
affirmed,  indeed,  that  a  great  change  has  lately  taken  place  in  the 
public  mind;  that  the  sentiment  in  favour  of  reform  is  diffused 
more  widely,  while  the  violence  and  exaggeration  of  that  senti- 
ment  in  particular  minds  is  much  abated;  that  more  people  wish 
for  a  reform;  but  that  there  is  a  greater  disposition  to  be  satisfied 
with  a  moderate  one;  that  in  proportion  as  a  practical  alteration 
has  become  more  generally  desired,  the  wild  and  visionary  theo- 
ries heretofore  prevailing  have  been  relinquished  and  discounte- 
nanced. This  may  possibly  be  so:  but  on  what  ground  am  I  to 
rest  my  belief  of  it?  I  have  seen  nothing  in  the  course  of  the  last 
two  years,  during  which  the  noble  lord  (Lord  Folkstone,)  en  the 
floor,  has  been  meditating  on  my  speech  at  Liverpool,  to  lead  me 
to  think  that  those  who,  two  years  ago,  entertained  wild  and  vi- 
sionary notions  of  reform,  have  since  relinquished  them.  If  my 
speech  was,  as  the  noble  lord  declares,  calculated  only  to  make 
proselytes  to  the  persuasion  that  the  present  House  of  Commons 
is  inadequate  to  the  discharge  of  its  functions,  and  if  such  be  in 
consequence  the  views  which  that  noble  lord  has  adopted,  how 
can  he  entertain  the  notion  that  the  small  alterations  proposed  by 
the  noble  mover  will  satisfy  genuine  reformers? — Let  him  be  as- 
sured that  he  must  go  far  deeper  into  democracy  before  he  can 
hope  to  satisfy  the  cravings  of  reform;  nay,  without  the  hope  of 
satisfying  them,  though  the  Constitution  may  be  sacrified  in  the 
experiment. 

Sir,  if  the  House  looks  only  to  the  various  plans  of  reform 
which  have  at  different  times  been  laid  upon  its  table,  not  by  vi- 
sionary speculatists,  but  by  able  and  enlightened  men,  some  of  the 
ornaments  of  this  and  the  other  House  of  Parliament,  how  faint 
and  flat  is  the  noble  lord's  (Lord  John  Russell)  present  plan  in 
comparison  with  them!  Let  us  take,  for  example,  that  one  of  the 
plans  which  had  the  greatest  concurrence  of  opinions,  and  the 
greatest  weight  of  authority  in  its  favour.  A  petition  was  pre- 
sented to  this  House  in  1793,  which  may  perhaps  be  considered 
as  the  most  advised  and  authentic  exposition  of  the  principles  of 
Parliamentary  Reform,  that  ever  has  been  submitted  to  the  con- 
sideration of  this  House  or  of  the  public.  Those  principles  are 
45  EE 


338  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

developed  by  the  petitioners,  with  singular  clearness  and  force, 
and  expressed  in  admirable  language.  It  was  presented  by  a  no- 
ble person,  now  one  of  the  chief  lights  of  the  other  House  of  Par- 
liament, as  the  petition  of  the  "  Friends  of  the  People,  associated 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  Reform  in  Parliament."  In  that 
petition,  certain  distinct  propositions  are  laid  down  as  the  basis  of 
a  reform,  which,  to  my  recollection,  have  never  yet  been  disclaim- 
ed, either  on  the  part  of  the  petitioners,  or  of  those  who  have  suc- 
ceeded them  in  the  same  pursuit.  The  petitioners  complain,  in 
the  first  place,  that  there  is  not  an  uniform  right  of  voting; — 
secondly,  that  the  right  of  voting  is  in  too  small  bodies; — third- 
ly, that  many  great  bodies  are  excluded  from  voting; — and, 
fourthly,  they  complain  of  the  protracted  duration  of  Parlia- 
ments* Does  the  noble  lord  believe  that  all  these  notions  are 
forgotten?  that  no  persons  still  cherish  them  as  the  only  means  of 
effecting  the  salvation  of  the  country? — or  does  the  noble  lord 
subscribe  to  them  all,  although  he  may  not  think  this  the  time  for 
pressing  them  upon  the  House? 

For  my  part,  Sir,  I  value  the  system  of  Parliamentary  Repre- 
sentation, for  that  very  want  of  uniformity  which  is  complained 
of  in  this  petition;  for  the  variety  of  rights  of  election.  I  con- 
ceive, that  to  establish  one  uniform  right  would  inevitably  be  to 
exclude  some  important  interests  from  the  advantage  of  being  rep- 
resented in  this  House.  At  all  events,  the  noble  lord's  plan  does 
not  cure  this  objection.  The  rights  of  voting  would  remain  as  va- 
rious after  the  adoption  of  his  plan,  as  before;  and  a  new  variety 
would  be  added  to  them.  Even  of  burgage  tenures,  the  most  ob- 
noxious right  of  all,  and  the  most  indignantly  reprobated  by  the 

*  Extract  of  the  petition  of  the  "  Friends  of  the  People,"  presented  to  the 
House  of  Commons  May  6th,  1793 : — 

"  Your  petitioners  complain,  that  the  number  of  representatives  assigned  to 
the  different  counties,  is  grossly  disproportioned  to  their  comparative  extent, 
population  and  trade. 

"  Your  petitioners  complain,  that  the  elective  franchise  is  partially  and  une- 
qually distributed,  and  is,  in  many  instances,  committed  to  bodies  of  men  of  such 
very  limited  numbers,  that  the  majority  of  your  Honourable  House  is  elected 
by  less  than  fifteen  thousand  electors,  which,  even  if  the  male  adults  in  the 
kingdom  be  estimated  at  so  low  a  number  as  three  millions,  is  not  more  than 
the  two-hundredth  part  of  the  people  to  be  represented. 

"  Your  petitioners  complain,  that  the  right  of  voting  is  regulated  by  no  uni- 
form or  rational  principle. 

"  Your  petitioners  complain,  that  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  is 
only  renewed  once  in  seven  years. 

"  Is  it  fitting  that  Yorkshire  and  Rutland  should  have  an  equal  rank  in  the 
scale  of  county  representation? 

"  Your  petitioners  affirm,  that  seventy  of  your  honourable  members  are  re- 
turned by  thirty-five  places,  where  the  right  of  voting  is  vested  in  burgage  and 
other  tenures  of  a  similar  description." — Pari.  History,  Vol.  xxx.  p.  789. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  339 

petition  of  1793,  the  noble  lord  would   carefully  preserve  the 
principle,  only  curtailing,  by  one  half,  its  operation. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  this  alleged  defect  of  variety  in  rights 
of  voting  was  much  more  directly  dealt  with  by  the  honourable 
member  for  Durham  (Mr.  Lambton,)  in  the  last  session,  when  he 
brought  forward,  with  great  ability,  and  with  the  utmost  temper 
and  moderation,  his  specific  plan  of  reform.  That  honourable 
gentleman  proposed  to  treat  the  constitution  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons as  a  rasa  tabula,  and  to  reconstruct  the  system  of  repre- 
sentation altogether  upon  an  uniform  plan,  abating,  without  scru- 
ple, every  right  and  interest  that  stood  in  his  way.  His  plan  dif- 
fered as  materially  from  that  of  the  noble  lord,  as  the  noble  lord's 
differs  from  that  of  Mr.  Pitt,  and  from  the  project  of  1793.  I  do 
not  mean  to  say,  (I  shall  not  be  so  misunderstood,  I  trust)  that  I 
approved  therefore  of  the  honourable  member  for  Durham's  plan, 
or  thought  it  either  practicable  or  tolerable.  Certainly,  no  con- 
queror of  an  invaded  country  ever  parcelled  out  with  a  more  un- 
sparing hand  the  franchises  and  properties  of  individuals  and  com- 
munities; but  that  plan  had  at  least  one  merit  which  the  noble 
lord's  has  not:  it  cured  the  alleged  evil  of  diversified  rights,  and 
tended  to  produce  the  desired  uniformity  of  representation. 

Then,  Sir,  as  to  the  duration  of  Parliament.  Triennial  Parlia- 
ments, it  is  averred  by  the  petitioners  of  1793,  would  be  greatly 
preferable  to  septennial.  The  House  would  become  a  more  ex- 
press image  of  its  constituents,  by  being  more  frequently  sent 
back  to  them  for  election;  deriving,  like  the  giant  of  old,  fresh 
vigour  from  every  fresh  contact  with  its  parent  earth.  But  the  no- 
ble lord,  if  I  understand  him  rightly,  admits  that  this  particular  re- 
form would  be  rather  an  aggravation  of  inconveniences,  other  de- 
fects in  the  Constitution  remaining  unchanged.  Nothing,  indeed, 
can  be  more  clear  than  this  proposition.  One  of  the  main  objec- 
tions to  close  representation,  at  present,  is  the  advantage  which 
the  member  for  a  close  borough  has  over  one  chosen  by  a  popular 
election.  The  dissolution  of  Parliament  sends  the  popular  repre- 
sentative back  to  a  real  and  formidable  trial  at  the  bar  of  his  con- 
stituents. For  the  representative  of  a  close  borough  there  is  no 
trial  at  all:  he  sits  still,  and  is  returned  without  any  struggle  or 
inquiry.  It  is  obvious  that  the  proportion  of  this  comparative 
disadvantage  must  be  aggravated  by  every  repetition  of  a  general 
election. 

But  further.  What  is  the  original  sin  of  Septennial  Parlia- 
ments?— Why,  that  the  Septennial  Bill  was  a  violent  measure. 
Granted:  it  was  so.  But  this  allegation,  however  just,  applies 
only  to  one  enactment  of  the  act,  not  to  its  general  policy.  The 
violence  of  the  Septennial  Act  did  not  consist  in  the  prolonga- 
tion of  the  duration  of  Parliaments  in  time  to  co?ne:  for  to  do 


540  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

that,  the  supreme  authority  of  the  state  was  undoubtedly  as  com- 
petent, as  it  was  to  shorten  the  duration  of  Parliaments  by  the 
Triennial  Act  some  twenty  years  before.  The  violence  consisted 
in  prolonging  the  duration  of  the  then  existing  Parliament 
— in  extending  to  seven  years  a  trust  confided  but  for  three. 
This,  and  this  alone,  is  the  questionable  part  of  that  act — 
questionable,  I  mean,  as  to  right.  I  will  not  now  inquire  how 
far  the  political  necessities  of  the  time  justified  so  strong  an  act 
of  power.  It  is  quite  enough,  for  any  practical  purpose,  that  the 
evil,  whatever  it  was,  is  irremediable;  that  its  effect  is  gone  by; 
that  the  repeal  of  the  Septennial  Act  now  cannot  undo  it;  and 
that,  therefore,  how  grave  soever  the  charge  against  the  framers 
of  the  act  might  be,  for  the  arbitrary  injustice  of  its  immediate 
operation  (a  question,  into  the  discussion  of  which  I  have  said  I 
will  not  enter,)  the  repeal  of  it  would  have  no  tendency  to  cure 
the  vice  of  that  enactment  which  has  given  the  Septennial  Act 
its  ill  name;  but  would  only  get  rid  of  that  part  of  it  which  is 
blameless,  at  least,  if  not  (as  I  confess  I  think  it)  beneficial  in  its 
operation.  But  however  much  the  duration  of  Parliaments  may 
be  entitled  to  a  separate  discussion,  it  is  not  to  that  point  that  the 
noble  lord  has  called  our  attention  to-night.  A  change  in  the 
constitution  of  the  House  of  Commons,  is  the  object  of  the  noble 
lord's  motion. 

That  such  a  change  is  necessary,  the  noble  lord  asserts — and  I 
deny.     I  deny  altogether  the  existence  of  any  such  practical  de- 
lect in  the  present  constitution  of  this  House,  as  requires  the 
adoption  of  so  fearful  an  experiment.  The  noble  lord  has  attempt- 
ed to  show  the  necessity  of  such  a  change  by  enumerating  certain 
questions  on  which  this  House  has,  on  sundry  occasions,  decided 
against  the  noble  mover's  opinion,  and  against  the  politics  and 
interests  of  that  party  in  the  state,  of  which  the  noble  mover  is  so 
conspicuous  an  ornament.     But  if  such  considerations  be  suffi- 
cient to  unsettle  an  ancient  and  established  form  of  political  Con- 
stitution, how  could  any  Constitution — any  free  Constitution — 
exist  for  six  months  ?     While  human  nature  continues  the  same, 
the  like  divisions  will  arise  in  every  free  state;  the  like  conflict 
of  interests  and  opinions;  the  like  rivalry  for  office;  the  like  con- 
tention for  power.     A  popular  assembly  always   has  been  and 
always  will  be  exposed  to  the  operation  of  a  party-feeling,  array- 
ing its  elements  and  influencing  its  decisions,  in  modern  as  in  an- 
cient times;  in   Great  Britain,  in  this  our  day,  as  heretofore  in 
Athens  or  in  Rome.     No  imaginable  alteration  in  the  mode  of 
election  can  eradicate  this  vice,  if  it  be  a  vice;  or  can  extinguish 
that  feeling,  be  it  good  or  bad,  which  mixes  itself  largely  in  every 
debate  upon  the  public  affairs  of  a  nation — the  feeling  of  affection 
or  disfavour  towards  the  persons  in  whose  hands  is  the  conduct 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  341 

of  those  affairs.     I  am  not  saying  that  this  is  a  proper  and  lauda- 
ble feeling:  I  am  not  contending  that  partiality  ought  to  influence 
judgment;    still  less  that  when  judgment  and  partiality  are  at 
variance,  the  latter  ought,  in  strict  duty,  to  preponderate.     I  am 
not  affirming  that  in  the  discussion  of  the  question,  "  What  has 
been  done?"    the  question,  "Who  did  it?"    ought  silently  to 
dictate,  or  even  to  modify,  the  answer;  that  the  case  should  be 
nothing,  and  the  men  every  thing.     I  say  no  such  thing.     But  I 
do  say  that  while  men  are  men,  popular  assemblies,  get  them 
together  how  you  will,  will  be  liable  to  such  influence.     I  say, 
that  in  discussing  in  a  popular  assembly  the  particular  acts  of  a 
government,  the  consideration  of  the  general  character  of  that 
government,  and  the  conflicting  partialities  which  lead  some  men 
to  favour  it,  and  others  to  aim  at  its  subversion,  will,  sometimes 
openly  and  avowedly,  at  other  times  insensibly  even  to  the  dis- 
putants themselves,  control  opinions  and  votes,  and   correct,  or 
pervert  (as  it  may  be)  the  specific  decision.     I  say  that,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  discussion  upon  the  Walcheren  Expedition,  which 
has  been  more  than  once  selected  as  an  example  of  undue  influ- 
ence and  partiality,  there  was  notoriously  another  point  at  issue 
beside  the  specific  merits  of  the  case  ;  and  that  point  was,  whether 
the  then  Administration  should  or  should  not  be  dismissed  from 
the  service  of  their  country?     Never,  perhaps,  was  the  struggle 
pushed  farther  than  on  that  occasion;  and  that  vote  substantially 
decided  the  question  "  in  what  hands  should  be  placed  the  Ad- 
ministration of  affairs."     I  am  not  saying  that  this  was  right  in 
the  particular  instance — I  am  not  saying  that  this  is  right  in  prin- 
ciple.    But  right  or  wrong,  such  a  mode  of  thinking  and  acting 
is,  I  am  afraid,  essentially  in  the  very  nature  of  all  popular  go- 
vernments; and  most  particularly  so  in  that  of  the  most  free. 

The  noble  lord  has  himself  stated,  that  in  the  instance  of  the 
Revolution  the  Parliament  did  widely  in  setting  at  nought  the 
immediate  feelings  of  its  constituents.  There  cannot  indeed  be 
the  slightest  doubt  that  had  the  nation  been  polled  in  1688,  the 
majority  would  have  been  found  adverse  to  the  change  that 
was  then  effected  in  the  Government:  but  Parliament,  acting  in 
its  higher  and  larger  capacity,  decided  for  the  people's  interests 
against  their  prejudices.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  House 
of  Commons  is  necessarily  defective,  because  it  may  not  instantly 
respond  to  every  impression  of  the  people. 

In  the  year  1811,  I  myself  divided  in  a  minority  of  about  forty 
against  an  overwhelming  majority,  on  the  question  relating  to  the 
depreciation  of  the  currency.  It  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  the 
majority,  which  sturdily  denied  the  fact  of  that  depreciation, 
then  spoke  the  sentiments  of  the  country  at  large;  they  certainly 
did  so;  but  who  will   now  affirm  that  it  would   have  been  a  mis- 

*EE 


342  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

fortune  if  the  then  prevailing  sense  of  the  country  had  been  less 
faithfully  represented  in  the  votes  of  this  House?  What  a  world 
of  error  and  inconvenience  should  we  have  avoided,  by  a  salutary 
discrepancy,  at  that  time,  between  the  constituent  and  the  repre- 
sentative! Eight  years  afterwards,  but  unluckily  after  eight 
years'  additional  growth  of  embarrassment,  in  1819,  the  princi- 
ples which  had  found  but  about  forty  supporters  in  1S11,  were 
adopted  unanimously,  first  by  a  committee  of  this  House,  and 
then  by  this  House  itself.  But  the  country  was  much  slower  in 
coming  back  from  the  erroneous  opinions  which  the  decision  of 
this  House  in  1811  had  adopted  and  confirmed.  In  1819,  as  in 
1811,  if  London  and  the  other  principal  towns  of  the  kingdom 
had  been  canvassed  for  an  opinion,  the  prevailing  opinion  would 
still  have  been  found  nearly  what  it  was  in  1811.  Yet  is  it  necessary 
to  argue  that  the  decision  of  the  House  in  1819,  against  the  opin- 
ion of  the  country,  was  a  sounder  and  wiser  decision  than  that  of 
1811  in  conformity  to  it?  Never  then  can  I  consider  it  as  a  true 
proposition  that  the  state  of  the  representation  is  deficient,  be- 
cause it  does  not  immediately  speak  the  apparent  sense  of  the 
people — because  it  sometimes  contradicts,  and  sometimes  goes 
before  it.  The  House,  as  well  as  the  people,  are  liable  to  err; 
but  that  the  House  may  happen  to  differ  in  opinion  from  the  peo- 
ple, is  no  infallible  mark  of  error.  And  it  would,  in  my  opinion, 
be  a  base  and  cowardly  House  of  Commons,  unworthy  of  the 
large  and  liberal  confidence  without  which  it  must  be  incompe- 
tent to  the  discharge  of  its  highest  functions,  which  having,  after 
due  deliberation,  adopted  a  great  public  measure,  should  be  fright- 
ened back  into  an  acquiescence  with  the  temporary  excitement 
which  might  exist  upon  that  measure  out  of  doors. 

Upon  another  great  question  which  I  have  much  at  heart,  I 
mean  the  Roman  Catholic  Question,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt 
that  the  House  has  run  before  the  sense  of  the  country,  which  is 
now,  however,  gradually  coming  up  to  us.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
in  all  our  early  votes  on  this  most  important  question,  we  had  not 
the  country  with  us;  but  I  am  equally  confident  that  the  period 
is  rapidly  advancing,  when  the  country  will  be  convinced  that 
the  House  of  Commons  has  acted  as  they  ought  to  have  done.  If 
on  such  questions  as  these — questions  before  which  almost  all 
others  sink  into  insignificance — the  House  of  Commons  have 
been  either  against,  or  before,  the  opinions  of  the  country,  the 
proposition  that  the  representative  system  is  necessarily  imper- 
fect, because  it  does  not  give  an  immediate  echo  to  the  senti- 
ments of  the  people,  is  surely  not  to  be  received  without  abun- 
dant qualification.  On  this  ground  therefore  there  is  no  foundation 
for  the  noble  lord's  motion;  unless  the  free  expression  of  an 
honest  and  conscientious  opinion,  when  it  may  happen  to  differ 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  343 

from  that  of  its  constituents,  be  inconsistent  with  the  duty  and 
derogatory  to  the  character  of  a  representative  assembly. 

To  return  to  the  other  noble  lord  (Lord  Folkstone,)  who  has 
no  sooner  renounced  his  former  faith  and  adopted  a  new  one,  than 
he  seats  himself  in  the  confessional  chair,  and  calls  upon  me  for 
my  recantation: — that  noble  lord  has  desired  me  to  explain  and 
defend  the  proposition  which  I  have  heretofore  laid  down,  that 
those  who  wish  to  reform  the  House  of  Commons  must  intend  to 
reform  it  upon  one  of  two  principles — either  to  construct  it 
anew,  or  to  bring  it  back  to  the  state  at  which  it  exisited  at  some 
former  period.  Before  I  consent  to  be  thus  catechised  by  the 
noble  lord,  I  might  reasonably  ask  him  in  what  third  sense  the 
word  reform  can  be  understood,  except  that  in  which  it  is  some- 
times applied  to  a  military  corps,  which  means  to  disband  and 
cashier  it  altogether?  Short  of  that  mode  of  disposing  of  the 
House  of  Commons  (for  which  I  presume  the  noble  lord  is  not 
yet  altogether  prepared,)  there  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  or  can  con- 
ceive (until  the  noble  lord  shall  further  enlighten  me,)  no  other 
way  in  which  a  reform  can  take  place,  than  those  which  I  have 
specified.  Between  those  two  modes,  then,  I  must  still  desire  the 
noble  lord  to  make  his  choice.  If  his  choice  be  another  construc- 
tion— a  totally  new  scheme  of  House  of  Commons — is  it  unrea- 
sonable in  me  that,  before  I  pin  my  faith  upon  that  of  the  noble 
convert,  I  desire  to  behold  that  beau  ideal — that  imaged  perfec- 
tion of  political  good  by  which  his  reason  is  fascinated,  and  which 
his  inventive  fancy  has  pictured  to  him  as  the  standard  of  parlia- 
mentary purity?  If  the  second  of  my  proposed  alternatives  be 
that  which  the  noble  lord  prefers,  the  inquiry  that  I  have  then  to 
make  of  him  is  merely  historical;  and  surely  he  can  be  at  no  loss 
for  an  immediate  answer  to  it — What  is  the  golden  era  at  which 
the  House  of  Commons  was  precisely  what  you  would  have  it? 

Simple,  however,  as  this  latter  question  is,  I  have  never  yet 
met  with  the  reformer  who  did  not  endeavour  to  evade  it.  I 
must  endeavour  therefore  to  collect  the  best  answers  that  I  can, 
from  such  partial  indications  of  opinion  as  are  scattered  up  and 
down  among  the  general  arguments  for  reform.  Some  theorists 
are  fond  of  tracing  back  the  Constitution  to  the  twilight  times  of 
history,  where  all  that  can  be  clearly  discovered  is,  that  when  a 
Parliament  met,  it  usually  sat  about  a  fortnight,  granted  a  subsidy 
or  two,  and  was  forthwith  dissolved.  It  is  not  to  this  infancy  of 
our  institutions  that  any  one  will  soberly  refer,  for  the  likeness  of 
such  a  House  of  Commons  as  would  be  competent,  in  the  present 
age,  to  transact  the  business  of  the  country  and  to  maintain  its  due 
importance  in  the  Constitution.  But  the  House  gradually  attain- 
ed a  more  mature  existence;  it  has  grown  into  a  co-ordinate,  and 
is  now  the  preponderant  element  of  the  Constitution.     If  the 


344  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

House  has  thus  increased  in  power,  is  it  therefore  necessary  that 
it  should  also  become  more  popular  in  its  formation?    I  should 
say, — just  the  reverse.    If  it  were  to  add  to  its  real  active  govern- 
ing influence  such  an  exclusively  popular  character  and  tone  of 
action  as  would  arise  from  the  consciousness  that  it  was  the  im- 
mediately deputed  agent  for  the  whole  people,  and  the  exclusive 
organ  of  their  will,  the  House  of  Commons,  instead  of  enjoying 
one-third  part  of  the  power  of  the  state,  would,  in  a  little  time, 
absorb  the  whole.     How  could  the  House  of  Lords,  a  mere  as- 
sembly of  individuals,  however  privileged,  and  representing  only 
themselves,  presume  to  counteract  the  decisions  of  the  delegates 
of  the  people?  How  could  the  Crown  itself,  holding  its  power,  as 
/should  say,  for  the  people,  but  deriving  it  altogether,  as  others 
would  contend,  from  the  people, — presume  to  counteract,  or  hesi- 
tate implicitly  to  obey,  the  supreme  authority  of  the  nation  as- 
sembled within  these  walls?    I  fear  the  noble  lord  (Lord  Folk- 
stone)  is  not  prepared  to  answer  these  questions.     I  do  not  pre- 
sume to  say  that  they  are  unanswerable;  but  I  affirm  that,  since 
they  were  propounded  in  my  obnoxious  speech  at  Liverpool,  they 
have  yet  received  no  answer  here  or  elsewhere.     In  truth,  they 
admit  of  no  other  answer  than  one  which  I  happen  to  have  fallen 
upon  within  these  few  days,  in  the  report  of  a  debate  on  Parlia- 
mentary Reform  which  took  place  about  thirty  years  ago;  and  for 
which,  in  the  absence  of  any  answer  of  his  own,  the  noble  lord 
will  undoubtedly  be  very  thankful.     It  is  in  these  words: — "  It 
has  been  said  that  a  House  of  Commons,  so  chosen  as  to  be  a  com- 
plete representative  of  the  people,  would  be  too  powerful  for  the 
House  of  Lords,  and  even  for  the  King:  they  would  abolish  the 
one,  and  dismiss  the  other.     //'the  King  and  the  House  of  Lords 
are  unnecessary  and  useless  branches  of  the  Constitution,  let  them 
be  dismissed  and  abolished:  for  the  people  were  not  made  for 
them,  but  they  for  the  people.     If,  on  the  contrary,  the  King  and 
the  House  of  Lords  are  felt  and  believed  by  the  people  to  be  not 
only  useful  but  essential  parts  of  the  Constitution,  a  House  of 
Commons  freely  chosen  by  and  speaking  the  sentiments  of  the 
people,  would  cherish  and  protect  both,  within  the  bounds  which 
the  Constitution  had  assigned  to  them."*     These  are  reported  to 
have  been  the  words  of  a  man,  the  lustre  of  whose  reputation  will 
survive  through  distant  ages,  and  of  whom  I  can  never  intend 
to  speak  but  with  feelings  of  respect  and  admiration:  they  are  the 
words  of  Mr.  Fox.     That  the  report  is  accurate  to  a  letter,  I  am 
not  entitled  to  contend;  but  the  substance  of  an  argument  so  strik- 
ingly important,  cannot  have  been  essentially  misapprehended.     I 
quote  these  words  with  the  freedom  of  history;  not  with  the  de- 

*  Parliamentary  History,  vol.  xxx.  p.  921.  (May  6,  1793.) 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  345 

sign  of  imputing  blame  to  the  speaker  of  them,  but  because  they 
contain  a  frank  solution  (according  with  the  frankness  of  his  char- 
acter) of  the  difficulty  with  which,  in  these  days,  I  have  not  found 
any  one  hardy  enough  to  grapple.  So  then — a  House  of  Com- 
mons freely  chosen  by  the  people,  would,  it  seems  "  cherish  and 
protect"  the  House  of  Lords  and  the  Crown,  so  long  as  they  re- 
spectively kept  within  the  bounds  allotted  to  them  by  the  Consti- 
tution. Indeed?  cherish  and  protect! — but  cherish  and  protect, 
if  so  and  so:  and  how,  if  not  so  and  so?  How,  if  the  House  of 
Commons  in  its  reformed  character,  should  happen  to  entertain  a 
different  opinion  with  respect  to  the  "bounds"  to  be  allotted  to 
the  Crown  and  to  the  lords  under  the  new  Constitution  ?  What 
would  then  be  substituted  for  cherishment  and  protection  ?  A  fear- 
ful question!  but  a  question  which  must  be  answered,  and  much 
more  satisfactorily  than  I  can  anticipate,  before  I  can  consent  to 
exchange  that  equality  and  co-ordination  of  powers  among  the 
three  branches  of  our  present  Constitution,  in  which  its  beauty, 
its  strength,  its  stability,  and  the  happiness  of  those  who  live  un- 
der it,  consist,  for  a  Constitution  in  which  two  of  those  powers 
should  confessedly  depend  for  their  separate  existence  on  the  dis- 
position of  the  third  to  "cherish  and  protect"  them.  This  new 
Constitution  might  be  very  admirable:  but  it  is  not  the  Constitu- 
tion under  which  I  live;  it  is  not  the  Constitution  to  which  I  owe 
allegiance;  it  is  not  the  Constitution  which  I  would  wish  to  intro- 
duce; and  in  order  not  to  introduce  a  Constitution  of  this  nature, 
I  must  not  consent  to  the  Reform  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

If  this  House  is  adequate  to  the  functions  which  really  belong 
to  it, — which  functions  are,  not  to  exercise  an  undivided,  supreme 
dominion  in  the  name  of  the  people,  over  the  Crown  and  the 
other  branch  of  the  Legislature,  but  checking  the  one  and  balancing 
the  other,  to  watch  over  the  people's  rights  and  to  provide  especial- 
ly for  the  people's  interests.  If,  I  say,  the  House  is  adequate  to 
the  performance  of  these  its  legitimate  functions,  the  mode  of  its 
composition  appears  to  me  a  consideration  of  secondary  import- 
ance. I  am  aware,  that  by  stating  this  opinion  so  plainly,  I  run  the 
risk  of  exciting  a  cry  against  myself;  but  it  is  my  deliberate  opin- 
ion, and  I  am  not  afraid  to  declare  it.  Persons  may  look  with  a 
critical  and  microscopic  eye  into  bodies  physical  or  moral,  until 
doubts  arise  whether  it  is  possible  for  them  to  perform  their  as- 
signed functions.  Man  himself  is  said  by  inspired  authority  to 
be  "fearfully"  as  well  as  "  wonderfully  made."  The  study  of 
anatomy,  while  it  leads  to  the  most  beneficial  discoveries  for  the 
detection  and  cure  of  physical  disease,  has  yet  a  tendency,  in  some 
minds,  rather  to  degrade  than  to  exalt  the  opinion  of  human  na- 
ture. It  appears  surprising  to  the  contemplator  of  a  skeleton  of 
the  human  form,  that  the  eyeless  skull,  the  sapless  bones,  the  as- 
46 


346  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

semblage  of  sinews  and  cartilages  in  which  intellect  and  volition 
have  ceased  to  reside,  that  this  piece  of  mechanism  should  consti- 
tute a  creature  so  noble  in  reason,  so  infinite  in  faculties,  in  appre- 
hension so  like  a  god;  a  creature  formed  after  the  image  of  the 
Divinity,  to  whom  Providence 

"Os — sublime  dedit:  ccelumque  tueri 
Jussit,  et  erectos  ad  sidera  tollere  vultus." 

So,  in  considering  too  curiously  the  composition  of  this  House, 
and  the  different  processes  through  which  it  is  composed,  not  those 
processes  alone  which  are  emphatically  considered  as  pollution 
and  corruption,  but  those  also  which  rank  among  the  noblest  ex- 
ercises of  personal  freedom,  the  canvasses,  the  conflicts,  the  con- 
troversies, and  (what  is  inseparable  from  these)  the  vituperations, 
and  excesses  of  popular  election,  a  dissector  of  political  constitu- 
tions might  well  be  surprised  to  behold  the  product  of  such  ele- 
ments in  an  assembly,  of  which,  whatever  may  be  its  other  char- 
acteristics, no  man  will  seriously  deny  that  it  comprehends  as 
much  of  intellectual  ability  and  of  moral  integrity  as  was  ever 
brought  together  in  the  civilized  world.  Nay,  to  an  unlearned 
spectator,  undertaking  for  the  first  time  an  anatomical  examination 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  those  parts  of  it  which,  according  to 
theory,  are  its  beauties,  must  appear  most  particularly  its  stains. 
For  while  the  members  returned  for  burgage-tenure  seats,  or 
through  other  obscure  and  noiseless  modes  of  election,  pass  into 
the  House  of  Commons  unnoticed  and  uncriticised,  their  talents 
unquestioned  and  their  reputations  unassailed,  the  successful  can- 
didate of  a  popular  election  often  comes  there  loaded  with  the  im- 
putation of  every  vice  and  crime  that  could  unfit  a  man  not  only 
for  representing  any  class  of  persons,  but  for  mixing  with  them 
as  a  member  of  society.  The  first  effect  of  a  reform  which  should 
convert  all  elections  into  popular  ones,  would  probably  be  to  en- 
sure a  congregation  of  individuals,  against  every  one  of  whom  a 
respectable  minority  of  his  constituents  would  have  pronounced 
sentence  of  condemnation.  And  if  it  be  so  very  hard  that  there 
are  now  a  great  number  of  persons  who  do  not  directly  exercise 
the  elective  franchise,  and  who  are  therefore  represented  by  per- 
sons whom  others  have  chosen  for  them,  would  this  matter  be 
much  mended  when  two-fifths  of  the  people  of  England  should 
be  represented  not  only  without  their  choice,  but  against  their 
will;  not  only  by  individuals  whom  they  had  not  selected,  but 
by  those  whom  they  declared  utterly  unworthy  of  their  confi- 
dence? 

Again; — should  we  have  no  cause  to  lament  the  disfranchise- 
ment of  those  boroughs  which  are  not  open  to  popular  influence  ? 
How  many  of  the  gentlemen  who  sit  opposite  to  me,  the  rarest 
talents  of  their  party,  owe  their  seats  to  the  existence  of  such  bo- 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


347 


roughs?  When  I  consider  the  eminent  qualities  which  distin- 
guish, for  instance,  the  representatives  of  Knaresborough,  Win- 
chelsea,  Wareham,  Higham-Ferrers,  I  never  can  consent  to  join  in 
the  reprobation  cast  upon  a  system  which  fructifies  in  produce  of 
so  admirable  a  kind.  No,  Sir,  if  this  House  is  not  all  that  theory- 
could  wish  it,  I  would  rather  rest  satisfied  with  its  present  state, 
than  by  endeavouring  to  remedy  some  small  defects,  run  the  haz- 
ard of  losing  so  much  that  is  excellent.  Old  Sarum  and  other 
boroughs  at  which  the  finger  of  scorn  is  pointed,  are  not  more 
under  private  patronage  now  than  at  the  periods  the  most  glori- 
ous in  our  history.  Some  of  them  are  still  in  the  possession  of 
the  descendants  of  the  same  patrons  who  held  them  at  the  period 
of  the  Revolution.  Yet  in  spite  of  Old  Sarum  the  Revolution 
was  accomplished,  and  the  House  of  Hanover  seated  on  the 
throne.  In  spite  of  Old  Sarum,  did  I  say?  No;  rather  by  the 
aid  of  Old  Sarum  and  similar  boroughs;  for  the  House  has  heard 
it  admitted  by  the  noble  mover  himself,  that  if  the  House  of 
Commons  of  that  day  had  been  a  reformed  House  of  Commons, 
the  benefits  of  the  Revolution  would  never  have  been  obtained. 

The  noble  lord,  in  his  opening  speech,  made  some  allusion  to 
the  constitutional  history  of  ancient  Rome,  and  called  upon  my 
honourable  friend  (Mr.  Bankes)  opposite,  as  the  most  recent  his- 
torian of  that  republic,  to  vouch  for  his  facts,  and  for  the  applica- 
tion of  them.  Let  me  follow  the  noble  lord  into  his  Roman  His- 
tory, to  ask  him  a  single  question.  How  was  the  senate  of  Rome 
composed  ?  I  doubt  whether  even  my  honourable  friend  opposite 
can  inform  us.  All  that  is  certainly  known  on  the  subject  is,  that 
one  and  by  far  the  most  usual  way  of  gaining  admission  to  the 
senate,  (this  has  not  a  very  reforming  sound,)  was  through  office. 
Yet  that  senate  dictated  to  the  world,  and  adequately  represented 
the  majesty  of  the  Roman  people.  History  blazons  its  deeds, 
while  antiquarian  ism  is  poring  into  its  pedigree. 

But  have  the  defects  imputed  to  the  composition  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  House  of  Commons  increased  with  time?  Are  they 
grown  more  numerous  or  more  unsightly?  I  believe  the  contrary. 
I  believe,  Sir,  that  in  whatever  period  of  our  history  the  compo- 
sition and  constitution  of  the  House  of  Commons  are  examined, 
not  only  will  the  same  alleged  abuses  as  are  now  complained  of 
be  found  to  have  prevailed;  but  I  will  venture  to  say,  prevailed 
in  a  degree  which  could  not  be  now  avowed  in  debate  without  a 
violation  of  our  orders.  There  is  great  difficulty  in  speaking  on 
this  delicate  part  of  the  subject.  It  has  been  made  an  article  of 
reproach  by  the  reformers,  that  the  enemies  of  reform  treat  these 
matters  with  shameless  indifference;  that  we  now  speak  with 
levity  of  transactions  the  bare  mention  of  which,  according  to 
the  dictum  of  once  the  highest  authority  in  this  House,  was  cal 


34S  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

culated  to  make  our  ancestors  perform  certain  evolutions  in  their 
graves.  Now  it  is  very  hard  that  the  want  of  shame  should  be 
imputed  to  those  who  are  upon  the  defensive  side  of  the  argu- 
ment. They  who  attack,  scruple  not  to  advance  charges  of  gross 
corruption  in  the  grossest  terms;  and  they  who  defend  are  re- 
duced to  the  alternative  either  of  affecting  to  be  ignorant  of  the 
nature  of  those  charges,  or  of  admitting  notorious  facts,  and  ac- 
counting for  or  extenuating  them;  and  if  they  take  the  latter 
course,  they  are  accused  of  shamelessness.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
however,  it  may  be  curious  and  perhaps  consolatory  to  show  to 
the  moralists  who  are  so  sensitive  upon  these  subjects,  that  cor- 
ruption, as  they  call  it,  that  (in  plain  words)  influence  in  the  re- 
turn of  members  to  Parliament,  if  it  be  a  sin,  is  not  one  for  which 
their  own  generation  is  exclusively  responsible.  The  taint,  if  it 
be  one,  is  not  newly  acquired,  but  inherited  through  a  long  line 
of  ancestors.  The  purge  or  the  cautery  may  be  applied  to  the 
present  generation;  but  I  can  show  that  the  original  malady  is  at 
least  as  old  as  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.  a  period  beyond  which  the 
most  retrospective  antiquary  will  not  require  of  us  to  go  back  in 
search  of  purity  of  election. 

Sir,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.  the  Duchess  of  Norfolk  thus  in- 
structed her  agent  as  to  the  election  of  members  for  the  county 
of  Norfolk:— 

"  *Right  trusty  and  well  beloved,  we  greet  you  heartily  well; 
and  forasmuch  as  it  is  thought  right  necessary  for  diverse  causes, 
that  My  Lord  have  at  this  time  in  the  Parliament  such  persons 
as  belong  unto  him,  and  be  of  his  menial  servants,  we  heartily 
desire  and  pray  you,  that  at  the  contemplation  of  these  our  letters, 
ye  will  give  and  apply  your  voice  unto  our  right  well  beloved 
cousin  and  servants,  John  Howard  and  Sir  Roger  Chamberlayn, 
to  be  Knights  of  the  Shire.  Framlingham  Castle,  8  June,  1455." 
What  follows,  probably  related  to  the  same  election;  it  is  ad- 
dressed (by  Lord  Oxenford)  to  the  same  individual  as  the  pre- 
ceding extract. 

"  tMy  Lord  of  Norfolk  met  with  my  Lord  of  York  at  Bury 
on  Thursday,  and  there  [they]  were  together  till  Friday,  nine  of 
the  clock,  and  then  they  departed;  and  there  a  gentleman  of  my 
Lord  of  York  took  unto  a  Yeoman  of  mine,  John  Deye,  a  Token 
;ind  a  Sedell  (Schedule)  of  my  Lord's  intent,  lohom  he  would 
have  Knights  of  the  Shire,  and  I  send  you  a  Sedell  inclosed  of 
their  names  in  this  Letter;  wherefore,  methinketh  it  [were]  well 
done  to  perform  my  Lord's  intent.,'> 

The  next  extract  which  I  shall  read  to  the  House  is  of  seven- 
teen years  later  date  than  the  preceding  ones.     It  is  from  a  letter 

*  Paston  Correspondence,  4to.  vol.  i.  p.  97.  f  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  99. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  349 

addressed  by  one  of  the  Duchess  of  Norfolk's  household  to  the 
bailiff  of  the  borough  of  Maldon,  and  is  dated  in  the  year  1472, 
the  11th  of  Edward  IV. 

"  *It  were  necessary  for  my  Lady  and  you  all  (her  Servants 
and  Tenants)  to  have  in  this  Parliament  as  for  one  of  the  Bur- 
gesses of  the  town  of  Maldon,  such  a  man  of  worship  and  of  wit 
as  were  towards  my  said  Lady;  and  also  such  one  as  in  favour 
of  the  King  and  of  the  Lords  of  his  Council  nigh  about  his  per- 
son; certifying  you,  that  my  Lady  for  her  part,  and  such  as  be  of 
her  council,  be  most  agreeable  that  all  such  as  be  her  farmers 
and  tenants  and  well-willers,  should  give  your  voice  to  a  worship- 
ful Knight,  and  one  of  my  Lady's  Council,  Sir  John  Paston, 
which  stands  greatly  in  favour  with  my  Lord  Chamberlain;  and 
what  my  said  Lord  Chamberlain  may  do  with  the  King,  and  with 
all  the  Lords  of  England,  I  trow  it  be  not  unknown  to  you." 

It  appears  from  the  following  letter  that  the  said  member-elect 
for  the  Borough  of  Maldon,  Sir  John  Paston  (to  whom  it  is  ad- 
dressed) had  expected  to  be  nominated  a  knight  of  the  shire;  but 
that  his  patrons  had  ordered  it  otherwise: — 

"  tMy  Lord  of  Norfolk,  and  my  Lord  of  Suffolk  were  agreed 
more  than  a  fortnight  ago,  to  have  Sir  Robert  Wyngfield.  and  Sir 
Richard  Harcourt;  and  that  knew  I  not  till  Friday  last  past. 
I  had  sent,  ere  I  went  to  Framlingham,  to  warn  as  many  of  your 
friends  to  be  at  Norwich  as  this  Monday,  to  serve  your  interest, 
as  I  could ;  but  when  I  came  to  Framlingham,  and  knew  the  ap- 
pointment that  was  taken  for  the  two  Knights,  I  sent  warning 
again  to  as  many  as  I  might,  to  tarry  at  home;  and  yet  there  came 
to  Norwich  this  day  as  many  as  their  costs  drew  to  9s.  lid.  paid 
and  reckoned  by  Peacock  and  Capron,  and  yet  they  did  but  break 
their  fasts  and  departed." "  If  ye  miss  to  be  Burgess  of  Mal- 
don, and  my  Lord  Chamberlain  will,  ye  may  be  in  another  place; 
there  be  a  dozen  Towns  in  England,  that  choose  no  Burgess, 
which  ought  to  do  it," — (this  will  surely  propitiate  the  Reform- 
ers):— "  ye  may  be  set  in  for  one  of  these  towns,  an  if  ye  be 
friended."     Such  was  reform  in  those  days! 

In  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  era  to  which,  habitually 
and  almost  instinctively,  the  mind  of  Englishmen  recurs  for  every 
thing  that  is  glorious,  I  could  show  the  House  that  the  Earl  of 
Essex,  her  mighty  favourite,  dictated,  without  scruple  or  reserve, 
the  returns  to  Parliament,  not  only  for  the  county  of  Stafford, 
but  for  every  borough  in  the  county.  Unluckily,  I  have  not  the 
documents  at  hand;  but  I  can  aver  it  on  the  most  uncjuestiona- 
ble  authority.:): 

*  Paston  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  99.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  103. 

\  Among  the  documents  alluded  to  in  this  passage,  are  the  following  letters 

FF 


350  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

Passing  over  the  reign  of  James  I.  and  his  unfortunate  succes- 
sor,— and  not  dwelling  upon  the  cavalier  treatment  which  Crom- 
well bestowed  upon  his  own  purified  and  reformed  Houses  of 

from  Robert  Devereux,  Earl  of  Essex,  to  Richard  Bagot,  Esq.,  high  sheriff  of 
the  County  of  Stafford  ;  of  which  the  originals  are  in  the  possession  of  Lord 
Ragot. 

1. — Robert  Devereux,  Earl  of  Essex,  to  Richard  Bagot,  Esq. 

"  After  my  verie  hartie  comendacions ;  I  cannot  write  severall  letters  to  all 
those  that  have  interest  in  the  choyse  of  the  Knights  of  the  Shere,  to  be  apoynt- 
ed  for  the  Parliament  intended  to  be  held  verie  shortlie.  To  which  place  I  do  ex- 
ceedingly desire  that  my  verie  good  friend,  Sir  Christofer  Blount,  may  be  elected. 
I  do,  therefore,  commend  the  matter  to  your  friendlie  sollicitacions,  praying 
you  to  move  the  gentlemen,  my  good  friends,  and  yours  in  that  countie;  par- 
ticularly in  my  name,  that  they  will  give  their  voice  with  him  for  my  sake  ; 
assuring  them  that  as  they  shall  do  it  for  one  whome  I  hold  deare,  and  whose 
sufficiencie  for  the  place  is  well  known  to  them ;  so  I  will  most  thankfullie  de- 
serve towards  them  and  yourselves  any  travell,  favour,  or  kindeness  that  shall 
be  showed  therein.  Thus  I  commit  you  to  God's  good  protection.  From  Hamp- 
ton Court,  the  2d  of  January,  1592. 

"ESSEX." 

"  I  persuade  myself  that  my  credit  is  so  good  with  my  countrymen,  as  the 
using  my  name  in  so  small  a  matter  will  be  enough  to  affect  it.  But  I  pray 
you  use  me  so  kindlie  in  that  as  I  have  no  repulse." 


2. — From  the  same  to  the  same. 

"  After  my  verie  hartie  commendacions.  As  I  have  by  my  late  letters  com- 
mended unto  you  Sir  Christofer  Blount  to  be  elected  one  of  the  Knights  of 
that  Shire,  for  the  Parliament  to  be  holden  verie  shortlie,  by  your  friendlie 
mediacion.  So  I  do  with  no  less  earnestness  intreate  your  like  favoure  towards 
my  very  good  friend,  Sir  Thomas  Sherrard,  for  the  other  place ;  praying  you 
that  you  will  employe  your  creditte,  and  use  my  name  to  all  my  good  friends 
and  yours,  there,  that  they  will  stand  faste  to  me  in  this  requeste,  and  that  my 
desire  may  be  effected  for  them.  They  cannot  give  me  better  testimonie  of 
their  love  and  affection,  because  they  are  both  such  as  I  hold  deare,  and  you 
may  assure  all  such  as  shall  join  with  you  in  election,  that  I  will  most  thank- 
fullie requite  their  readines,  and  furtherance  them  by  any  good  office  I  can. 
So  1  cominitte  vou  to  God's  best  protection.  From  Hampton  Court,  the  9th  of 
January,  1592."' 

"  Your  assured  friend, 

"  ESSEX." 

*•  1  should  think  my  credite  little  in  my  owne  countrie,  if  it  should  not  afford 
so  small  a  matter  as  this.  Esspessalie  the  men  being  so  fitt.  Therefore  I 
commend  you  all  (as  I  have  interest  in  your  labours)  effectuallie  in  it." 


3. — From  the  same  to  the  same. 

"  After  my  verie  hartie  commendacions.     I  have  written  severall  letters  to 
Lichfield,  Stafford,  Tamworth,  and  Newcastle,  for  the  nomination  and  election 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  351 

Commons,  I  come  to  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  where  I  find,  not 
amid  scarce  manuscripts  and  treasures  of  ancient  lore,  but  publish- 
ed in  a  hundred  popular  books,  in  sketches  of  biography,  and 
lessons  for  youth,  the  famous  letter  of  that  most  famous  woman, 
Anne,  Countess  of  Pembroke;  who,  amongst  her  other  great  titles 
and  possessions,  was  undoubted  patroness  of  the  then,  I  presume, 
free  and  independent  borough  of  Appleby.  This  great  lady  writes 
thus  to  Sir  Joseph  Williamson,  secretary  of  state  to  Charles  II., 
in  answer  to  his  suggestion  of  a  member  for  the  borough  of  Ap- 
pleby— 

"I  have  been  bullied  by  an  Usurper;  I  have  been  ill  treated 
by  a  Court;  but  I  won't  be  dictated  to  by  a  Subject;  your  Man 
sha'n't  stand. 

"  ANNE, 
"  Countess  of  Dorset,  Pembroke, 
and  Montgomery." 

Now,  Sir,  I  should  be  curious  to  know  ivhich  generation  of  our 
ancestors  it  is  that  the  exercise  of  political  influence  in  the  elec- 
tions of  the  present  day,  so  lamentably  disquiets  in  their  graves. 
Is  it  the  cotemporaries  of  the  Duchess  of  Norfolk,  and  of  the  wor- 
thy electors  of  Maldon,  who  were  to  be  careful  to  choose  mem- 
bers so  properly  "towards"  my  Lady? — or  those  who  tasted  the 
sweets  of  uninfluenced  election  under  Queen  Elizabeth  ? — or  those 
who  contemplated  with  equal  admiration  the  Countess  of  Pem- 
broke's defence  of  her  castles  against  the  forces  of  the  usurper, 
and  of  her  good  borough  of  Appleby  against  Secretary  William- 
son's nominee  ?  Pity  it  is  that  the  noble  lord  (Lord  Folkstone,)  the 
convert  to  reform,  did  not  live  in  the  days  of  one  or  other  of 
these  heroines!  Their  example  could  hardly  have  failed  to  re- 
convert him  to  his  original  native  sentiments  upon  the  subject  of 
influence  in  elections,  and  the  fit  constitution  of  a  House  of  Com- 
mons. 

of  certen  burgesses  of  the  Parliament  to  be  held  verie  shortlie.  I  have  -named 
unto  them,  for  Lichfield,  Sir  John  Wyngfield  and  Mr.  Bough  ton.  For  Staf- 
ford, my  kinsman,  Ifenrie  Bourgcher,  and  my  servant,  Edward  Reynolds.  For 
Tarn  worth,  my  servant,  Thomas  Smith.  For  Newcastle,  Dr.  James.  Whome, 
because  I  do  greatlie  desire  to  be  preferred  to  the  said  places,  1  do  earnestlie 
pray  your  furtherance,  by  the  creditt  which  you  have  in  those  towns.  Assur- 
ing them  of  my  thankfulness,  if  they  they  shall,  for  my  sake,  gratifie  those 
whom  I  have  commended;  and  yourself  that  I  will  not  be  unmyndful  of  your 
curtesie  therein.  So  f  commit  you  to  God's  good  protection.  From  Hampton 
Court,  the  last  of  December,  1592. 

"  Your  assured  friend, 

"  ESSEX." 

"  I  send  you  unto  the  severall  letters, 
which  I  praye  you  cause  to  be  delivered 
according  to  their  directions." 


352  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

But  1  nave  not  yet  done  with  my  list  of  patronesses.  Nor  haa 
interference  in  elections,  and  female  interference  too,  been  coupled 
with  no  great  name  in  the  unquestioned  good  times  of  the  Consti- 
tution. The  noble  lord  who  made  this  motion  will  pardon  me  for 
referring  him  to  the  published  letters  of  his  great  ancestress,  the 
Lady  Russell;  in  which  he  will  find  the  Lord  Steward  (the  Duke 
of  Shrewsbury,)  and  Lord  Keeper  Somers,  tendering  to  her,  for 
her  son  Lord  Tavistock,  then  a  minor,  the  representation  of  the 
county  of  Middlesex,  upon  the  single  condition  that  Lord  Tavis- 
tock would  consent  but  to  show  himself  to  the  electors  for  one 
day  under  the  name  of  Lord  Russell.*  The  offer  was  not  accept- 
ed, on  account,  so  far  as  appears,  of  Lord  Tavistock's  minority; 
though  instances  are  adduced  by  the  makers  of  the  proposition  to 
convince  her  ladyship  that  that  need  not  be  an  objection.  But 
what  would  be  said  now-a-days,  and  what  would  be  the  agitation 
of  our  buried  ancestors,  if  a  lord  chancellor  and  a  lord  steward 
were  to  concur  in  offering  a  seat  in  Parliament  for  a  county  to 
some  young  nobleman  yet  under  age?t 

Now  here  let  me  guard  myself  against  misrepresentation.  It 
must  not  be  imputed  to  me  that  I  am  saying  that  all  this  was 
right:  I  am  only  saying  that  all  this  was  so.  I  have  been  deal- 
ing (be  it  observed)  with  the  second  of  my  two  questions:  not 
with  the  question,  whether  the  House  of  Commons  should  be  re- 
constructed ? — but  with  the  question  whether  it  should  be  recalled 
to  some  state  in  which  it  formerly  stood  ?  I  have  been  endeavour- 
ing to  dispel  the  idle  superstition  that  there  once  existed  in  this 
country  a  House  of  Commons,  in  the  construction  of  which  the 
faults  that  are  attributed  to  the  present  House  of  Commons,  and 
attributed  to  it  as  a  motive  for  inflicting  upon  itself  its  own  de- 
struction, did  not  equally  exist:  and  not  only  exist  equally,  but 
exist  in  wider  extent  and  more  undisguised  enormity.  I  have 
been  showing  that  if  the  present  House  of  Commons  is  to  be  de- 
stroyed for  these  faults,  it  has  earned  that  fate  not  by  degeneracy, 

*"  At  the  General  Election  which  took  place  in  October  1695,  it  was  pro- 
posed to  her,  in  the  most  flattering  manner,  by  order  of  the  Duke  of  Shrews- 
bury, then  lord  steward,  and  the  lord  keeper  Somers,  to  bring  her  son  into 
Parliament  as  member  for  the  county  of  Middlesex."— Life  of  Lady  Rus- 
sell, Third  Edit.  8vo.  p.  120. 

f"It  is  to  be  remarked  that,  in  those  early  days  of  our  renovated  Constitu- 
tion, the  objection  of  Lord  Tavistock's  age  was  considered  merely  in  relation 
to  himself,  and  as  no  obstacle  to  the  success  of  his  election.  Mr.  Montague, 
in  his  letter  to  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  to  obviate  any  scruple  in  the  duke's  mind, 
mentions  that  Lord  Godolphin's  son  was  to  be  chosen  in  Cornwall,  and  Lord 
Leicester's  in  Kent,  who  were  neither  of  them  older  than  Lord  Tavistock : 
and  Mr.  Owen,  in  a  letter  to  Lady  Russell,  tells  her  the  Duke  of  Albemarle's 
son  had  been  allowed  to  sit  in  Parliament  underage." — Life  of  Ladv  Russell 
Third  Edit.  8vo.  p.  123.  * 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  353 

but  by  imitation;  that  it  would  in  such  case  expiate  the  misdeeds 
of  its  predecessors,  instead  of  suffering  for  any  that  are  peculiarly 
its  own.  I  have  been  endeavouring  to  prove,  that  of  the  two  op- 
tions,— "do  you  mean  to  restore? — or  to  construct  anew?" — no 
reformer  who  has  carefully  examined  the  subject,  can  in  sincerity 
answer  otherwise  than  "to  construct  anew:"  for  that  to  restore 
the  times  of  purity  of  election,  that  is,  of  election  free  from  the 
influence,  and  a  preponderating  influence  too,  of  property,  rank, 
station,  and  power,  natural  or  acquired,  would  be,  to  restore  a 
state  of  things  of  which  we  can  find  no  prototype,  and  to  revert 
to  times  which  in  truth  have  never  been. 

That  the  proposition  "to  construct  anew"  is  the  much  more 
formidable  proposition  of  the  two,  is  tacitly  admitted  by  the  very 
unwillingness  which  is  shown  on  all  occasions  to  acknowledge  it 
as  the  object  of  any  motion  for  reform.  Yet  to  that  must  the  re- 
formers come.  To  that,  I  venture  to  tell  the  noble  lord,  he,  with 
all  his  caution,  and  all  his  desire  to  avoid  extravagance  and  exag- 
geration, must  come,  if  he  consents  to  reform  -on  principle.  By 
reforming  "  on  principle,"  I  mean,  reforming  with  a  view  not 
simply  to  the  redress  of  any  partial,  practical  grievance,  but  gene- 
rally to  theoretical  improvement.  I  may  add  that  even  "  on  prin- 
ciple" his  endeavours  to  reform  will  be  utterly  vain,  if  he  insists 
upon  the  exclusion  of  influence,  as  an  indispensable  quality  of  his 
reformed  Constitution.  Not  in  this  country  only,  but  in  every 
country  in  which  a  popular  elective  assembly  has  formed  part  of 
the  Government,  to  exclude  such  influence  from  the  elections,  has 
been  a  task  either  not  attempted,  or  attempted  to  no  purpose. 
While  we  dam  up  one  source  of  influence,  a  dozen  others  will 
open;  in  proportion  as  the  progress  of  civilization,  the  extension 
of  commerce,  and  a  hundred  other  circumstances,  better  under- 
stood than  defined,  contribute  to  shift  and  change,  in  their  rela- 
tive proportions,  the  prevailing  interests  of  society.  Whether 
the  House  of  Commons,  in  its  present  shape,  does  not  practically 
though  silently  accommodate  itself  to  such  changes,  with  a  pliancy 
almost  as  faithful  as  the  nicest  artifice  could  contrive,  is,  in  my 
opinion,  I  confess,  a  much  more  important  consideration,  than 
whether  the  component  parts  of  the  House  might  be  arranged 
with  neater  symmetry,  or  distributed  in  more  scientific  pro- 
portions. 

But  am  I  therefore  hostile  to  the  reformation  of  any  proved 
cases  of  abuse,  or  to  the  punishment  of  mal-practices  by  which 
the  existing  rights  of  election  are  occasionally  violated?  No  such 
thing.  When  any  such  cases  are  pointed  out  and  proved,  far  be 
it  from  me  to  wish  that  they  should  be  passed  over  with  impunity. 
When  the  noble  lord  (Lord  John  Russell)  himself  brought  for- 
ward, two  years  ago,  a  bill  for  transferring  to  other  constituents, 
47  FF* 


354  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

the  right  of  election  of  a  borough  in  which  gross  corruption  had 
been  practised,  he  began,  as  I  thought  and  think,  in  the  right 
course.  When  he  proposed  the  disfranchisement  of  Grampound, 
I  gave  him  my  support;  and  if  other  cases  of  the  same  descrip- 
tion occurred,  I  should  be  ready  to  do  so  again.  That,  Sir,  is  the 
true  way  of  reforming  the  House  of  Commons:  by  adding 
strength  to  the  representation,  where  we  can  do  so  certainly  and 
definitely,  and  without  incurring  a  risk  of  evils  greater  than  those 
we  cure.  In  the  principle  of  that  proposition  of  the  noble  lord  I 
concurred:  and  if  I  concurred  with  those  who  suggested  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  county  of  York  for  the  town  of  Leeds,  as  the  re- 
cipient of  the  franchise  to  be  detached  from  Grampound,  I  did 
so,  not  because  I  was  apprehensive  that  Leeds  would  abuse  the 
privilege;  but  because,  for  the  last  forty  years,  the  want  of  a 
greater  number  of  members  for  the  county  of  York  had  been  the 
standing  grievance  complained  of  in  every  petition  for  reform. 
"  Shall  the  great  county  of  York  have  no  more  members  than  the 
little  county  of  Rutland?" — is  the  language  of  the  petition  of 
1793.  "  Shall  so  great,  and  populous,  and  manufacturing  a  county, 
be  no  more  numerously  represented  in  the  House  of  Commons 
than  the  borough  of  Shoreham,  or  Cricklade,  or  Midhurst,  or 
finally  than  Old  Sarum  ?" — are  the  apostrophes  which  have 
added  zest  to  every  debate,  and  a  sting  to  every  petition,  from 
the  year  17S0  to  the  present  day.  Well?  Here  was  an  oppor- 
tunity of  meeting  this  master-argument,  and  quieting  for  ever  the 
perturbed  solicitude  for  Yorkshire  representation.  I  thought, 
therefore,  that  it  would  be  a  pity  to  lose  such  an  opportunity;  the 
House  fortunately  was  of  the  same  opinion;  and  lo!  the  grievance 
of  grievances,  the  subject  of  forty  years'  clamour  is  redressed. 
Eut,  to  be  quite  ingenuous,  I  will  own  that  I  was  not  without  ex- 
pectation that  when  the  reformers  had  gained  this  point,  they 
would  find  out  that  they  had  not  gotten  exactly  what  they  want- 
ed. So  indeed  it  has  happened.  Since  the  bill  passed,  I  have 
heard  of  no  congratulations  on  the  event;  but  I  have  heard  of 
much  regret,  and  of  many  fears  lest  great  inconvenience  should 
result  from  the  measure  to  the  county  of  York  itself.  This  to  be 
sure  would  be  exceedingly  to  be  deplored:  and  to  remedy  so  un- 
lucky a  result  of  the  first  effort  at  reform,  I  understand  that  it  is 
now  in  contemplation  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the  purpose  of  dividing 
the  county  into  two  parts;  assigning  to  one  the  old  and  to  the 
other  the  new  representation.  We  shall  see  how  this  expedient 
will  be  relished.  For  my  own  part,  I  apprehend  that  every  true 
Yorkshireman  will  object  to  it  as  a  sort  of  converse  of  the  judg- 
ment of  Solomon;  and  that  the  two  old  members  especially,  will 
rush  forward  and  implore  that  their  ancient  parent  may  be  per- 
mitted to  survive  whole  and  unmutilated.     In  that  case,  I  shall 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  ->5j 

unquestionably  join  them  in  the  vote  for  keeping  Yorkshire  in 
undivided  magnitude,  with  its  augmented  representation;  afford- 
ing, as  it  will  do  in  that  state,  a  conclusive  reply  to  near  half  a 
century  of  remonstrances  and  lamentations. 

I  do  not  recollect  in  the  speech  of  the  noble  mover  any  other 
topic  on  which  I  feel  it  necessary  to  remark;  having  already,  I 
think,  touched  upon  all  the  main  principles,  if  not  upon  all  the 
details  and  illustrations  of  his  motion;  and  having,  I  am  well 
aware,  trespassed  largely  upon  the  indulgence  of  the  House. 

A  few  words  more  upon  the  more  general  topics,  which  belong 
to  this  debate,  and  I  have  done.  It  is  asked  over  and  over  again 
whether  the  House  of  Commons  ought  not  to  sympathize  with 
the  people?  I  answer,  undoubtedly,  yes;  and  so  the  House  of 
Commons  at  present  does,  finally  and  in  the  result.  But  1  also 
maintain  that  this  House  does  not  betray  its  trust,  if,  on  points  of 
gravity  and  difficulty,  of  deep  and  of  lasting  importance,  it  exer- 
cises a  wary  and  independent  discretion; — even  though  a  momen- 
tary misunderstanding  between  the  people  and  the  House,  should 
be  created  by  such  difference  in  opinion  with  the  people.  I  do 
not  believe  that  the  change  produced  by  the  noble  lord  would  in- 
fuse into  the  House  of  Commons  a  more  wholesome  spirit.  I  do 
not  believe  that  to  increase  the  power  of  the  people,  or  rather  to 
bring  that  power  into  more  direct,  immediate,  and  incessant  ope- 
ration upon  the  House — (whether  such  effect  should  be  produced 
by  rendering  elections  more  popular,  or  by  shortening  the  dura- 
tion of  Parliaments,  or  by  both) — I  do  not  believe,  I  say,  that  this 
change  would  enable  the  House  to  discharge  its  functions  more 
usefully  than  it  discharges  them  at  present.  With  respect  to  the 
plan  of  universal  suffrage  and  annual  Parliaments,  it  seems  to  be 
pretty  generally  agreed,  that  it  would  deprive  the  government  of 
all  consistence  and  stability.  Most  of  the  advocates  for  reform 
disclaim  these  doctrines,  and  resent  the  imputation  of  them.  I  am 
glad  of  it.  But  I  confess  myself  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  any 
extension  of  suffrage  on  principle,  how  any  shortening  of  Parlia- 
ments on  principle,  can  be  adopted  without  opening  the  whole 
scope  of  that  plan:  and  I  confess  myself  not  provided  with  any 
argument  satisfactory  to  my  own  mind,  by  which,  after  conceding 
these  alterations  in  principle,  I  could  hope  to  control  them  in 
degree.  I  am  still  more  at  a  loss  to  conceive  in  what  way  such 
partial  concession  could  tend  either  to  reconcile  to  the  frame  of 
the  House  of  Commons  those  who  are  discontented  with  it  as  it 
at  present  stands,  or  to  enable  Parliament  to  watch  more  effectual- 
ly over  the  freedom,  the  happiness,  and  the  political  importance 
of  the  country. 

Dreading  therefore  the  danger  of  total,  and  seeing  the  difficul- 
ties as  well  as  the  unprofitableness  of  partial  alteration,  I  object  to 


356  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 

this  first  step  towards  a  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  There  are  wild  theories  abroad.  I  am  not  disposed 
to  impute  an  ill  motive  to  any  man  who  entertains  them.  I  will 
believe  such  a  man  to  be  as  sincere  in  his  conviction  of  the  possi- 
bility of  realizing  his  notions  of  change  without  risking  the  tran- 
quillity of  the  country,  as  I  am  sincere  in  my  belief  of  their  im- 
practicability, and  of  the  tremendous  danger  of  attempting  to  carry 
them  into  effect;  but  for  the  sake  of  the  world,  as  well  as  for  our 
own  safety,  let  us  be  cautious  and  firm.  Other  nations,  excited 
by  the  example  of  the  liberty  which  this  country  has  long  pos- 
sessed, have  attempted  to  copy  our  constitution:  and  some  of  them 
have  shot  beyond  it  in  the  fierceness  of  their  pursuit.  I  grudge 
not  to  other  nations,  that  share  of  liberty  which  they  may  acquire: 
in  the  name  of  God,  let  them  enjoy  it!  But  let  us  warn  them  that 
they  lose  not  the  object  of  their  desire  by  the  very  eagerness  with 
which  they  attempt  to  grasp  it.  Inheritors  and  conservators  of 
rational  freedom,  let  us,  while  others  are  seeking  it  in  restlessness 
and  trouble,  be  a  steady  and  shining  light  to  guide  their  course, 
not  a  wandering  meteor  to  bewilder  and  mislead  them. 

Let  it  not  be  thought  that  this  is  an  unfriendly  or  disheartening 
counsel  to  those  who  are  either  struggling  under  the  pressure  of 
harsh  government,  or  exulting  in  the  novelty  of  sudden  emanci- 
pation. It  is  addressed  much  rather  to  those  who,  though  cradled 
and  educated  amidst  the  sober  blessings  of  the  British  Constitution, 
pant  for  other  schemes  of  liberty  than  those  which  that  Constitu- 
tion sanctions — other  than  are  compatible  with  a  just  equality  of 
civil  rights,  or  with  the  necessary  restraints  of  social  obligation;  of 
some  of  whom  it  may  be  said,  in  the  language  which  Dryden  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  one  of  the  most  extravagant  of  his  heroes,  that, 

"  They  would  be  free  as  nature  first  made  man, 
Ere  the  base  laws  of  servitude  began, 
When  wild  in  woods  the  noble  savage  ran." 

Noble  and  swelling  sentiments! — but  such  as  cannot  be  reduced 
into  practice.  Grand  ideas! — but  which  must  be  qualified  and  ad- 
justed by  a  compromise  between  the  aspirings  of  individuals,  and 
a  due  concern  for  the  general  tranquillity; — must  be  subdued  and 
chastened  by  reason  and  experience,  before  they  can  be  directed 
to  any  useful  end!  A  search  after  abstract  perfection  in  govern- 
ment, may  produce,  in  generous  minds,  an  enterprise  and  enthu- 
siasm to  be  recorded  by  the  historian  and  to  be  celebrated  by  the 
poet:  but  such  perfection  is  not  an  object  of  reasonable  pursuit, 
because  it  is  not  one  of  possible  attainment:  and  never  yet  did  a 
passionate  struggle  after  an  absolutely  unattainable  object  fail  to 
be  productive  of  misery  to  an  individual,  of  madness  and  confu- 
sion to  a  people.  As  the  inhabitants  of  those  burning  climates, 
which  lie  beneath  a  tropical  sun.  sigh  for  the  coolness  of  the  moun- 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.  357 

tain  and  the  grove;  so  (all  history  instructs  us)  do  nations  which 
have  basked  for  a  time  in  the  torrent  blaze  of  an  unmitigated  lib- 
erty, too  often  call  upon  the  shades  of  despotism,  even  of  military 
despotism,  to  cover  them — 

— "  O  quis  me  gelidis  in  vallibus  Haemi 
Sistat,  et  ingenti  ramorum  protegat  umbra !" — 

— a  protection  which  blights  while  it  shelters;  which  dwarfs  the 
intellect,  and  stunts  the  energies  of  man,  but  to  which  a  wearied 
nation  willingly  resorts  from  intolerable  heats,  and  from  perpetual 
danger  of  convulsion. 

Our  lot  is  happily  cast  in  the  temperate  zone  of  freedom:  the 
clime  best  suited  to  the  development  of  the  moral  qualities  of  the 
human  race;  to  the  cultivation  of  their  faculties,  and  to  the  securi- 
ty as  well  as  the  improvement  of  their  virtues: — a  clime  not  ex- 
empt, indeed,  from  variations  of  the  elements,  but  variations  which 
purify  while  they  agitate  the  atmosphere  that  we  breathe.  Let 
us  be  sensible  of  the  advantages  which  it  is  our  happiness  to  en- 
joy. Let  us  guard  with  pious  gratitude  the  flame  of  genuine  lib- 
erty, that  fire  from  heaven,  of  which  our  Constitution  is  the  holy 
depository;  and  let  us  not,  for  the  chance  of  rendering  it  more  in- 
tense and  more  radiant,  impair  its  purity  or  hazard  its  extinction! 

The  noble  lord  is  entitled  to  the  acknowledgments  of  the 
House,  for  the  candid,  able,  and  ingenuous  manner  in  which  he 
has  brought  forward  his  motion.  If  in  the  remarks  which  I  have 
made  upon  it,  there  has  been  any  thing  which  has  borne  the  ap- 
pearance of  disrespect  to  him,  I  hope  he  will  acquit  me  of  having 
so  intended  it.  That  the  noble  lord  will  carry  his  motion  this 
evening,  I  have  no  fear;  but  with  the  talents  which  he  has  shown 
himself  to  possess,  and  with  (I  sincerely  hope)  a  long  and  bril- 
liant career  of  parliamentary  distinction  before  him,  he  will,  no 
doubt,  renew  his  efforts  hereafter.  Although  I  presume  not  to 
expect  that  he  will  give  any  weight  to  observations  or  warnings 
of  mine,  yet  on  this,  probably  the  last,  opportunity  which  I  shall 
have,  of  raising  my  voice  on  the  question  of  Parliamentary  Re- 
form, while  I  conjure  the  House  to  pause  before  it  consents  to 
adopt  the  proposition  of  the  noble  lord,  I  cannot  help  conjuring 
the  noble  lord  himself,  to  pause  before  he  again  presses  it  upon 
the  country.  If,  however,  he  shall  persevere,  and  if  his  perse- 
verance shall  be  successful — and  if  the  results  of  that  success 
shall  be  such  as  I  cannot  help  apprehending — his  be  the  triumph 
to  have  precipitated  those  results — be  mine  the  consolation  thai 
to  the  utmost,  and  the  latest  of  my  power,  I  have  opposed  them. 

The  House  divided : — 

Ayes 164 

Noes 269 

Majority  against  the  Motion         105 


358 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

APRIL  28th,  1823. 

Mr.  Macdonald  concluded  a  speech,  in  which  he  took  an  extensive  review 
of  the  negotiations  at  Verona,  Paris,  and  Madrid,  respecting  the  affairs  of  Spain, 
by  moving  the  following  Address: — 

"That  an  humble  Address  be  presented  to  His  Majesty,  to  inform  His  Ma- 
jesty, that  this  House  has  taken  into  its  most  serious  consideration  the  papers 
relating  to  the  late  negotiation,  which  have  been  laid  before  them  by  His  Ma- 
jesty's gracious  command. 

"  To  represent  to  His  Majesty,  that  the  disappointment  of  His  Majesty's  be- 
nevolent solicitude  to  preserve  general  peace,  appears  to  this  House  to  have,  in 
a  great  measure,  arisen  from  the  failure  of  His  Majesty's  Ministers  to  make 
the  most  earnest,  vigorous,  and  solemn  protest  against  the  pretended  right  of 
the  sovereigns  assembled  at  Verona  to  make  war  on  Spain,  in  order  to  compel 
alterations  in  her  political  institutions,  as  well  as  against  the  subsequent  pre- 
tentions of  the  French  Government,  that  nations  cannot  lawfully  enjoy  any  civil 
privileges  but  from  the  spontaneous  grant  of  their  kings;  principles  destructive 
of  the  rights  of  all  independent  states,  which  strike  at  the  root  of  the  British 
Constitution,  and  are  subversive  of  His  Majesty's  legitimate  title  to  the  throne. 

"  Further,  to  declare  to  His  Majesty,  the  surprise  and  sorrow  with  which 
this  House  has  observed  that  His  Majesty's  Ministers  should  have  advised  the 
Spanish  Government,  while  so  unwarrantably  menaced,  to  alter  their  Constitu- 
tion, in  the  hope  of  averting  invasion;  a  concession  which  alone  would  have 
involved  the  total  sacrifice  of  national  independence;  and  which  was  not  even 
palliated  by  an  assurance  from  France,  that  on  receiving  so  dishonourable  a 
submission,  she  would  desist  from  her  unprovoked  aggression. 

"  Finally,  to  represent  to  His  Majesty,  that,  in  the  judgment  of  this  House, 
a  tone  of  more  dignified  remonstrance  would  have  been  better  calculated  to 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  continent,  and  thereby  to  secure  this  nation  more 
effectually  from  the  hazard  of  being  involved  in  the  calamities  of  war." 

Mr.  Stuart  Wortley  moved  an  amended  Address — 

"  That  an  humble  Address  be  presented  to  His  Majesty,  to  inform  His  Ma- 
jesty that  this  House  has  taken  into  its  most  serious  consideration  the  papers 
relating  to  the  late  negotiations,  which  have  been  laid  before  them  by  his  Ma- 
jesty's gracious  command.  To  assure  His  Majesty  of  our  entire  concurrence  in 
the  principles  which  His  Majesty  has  repeatedly  declared  with  respect  to  in- 
tereference  in  the  internal  concerns  of  independent  nations,  and  in  His  Majesty's 
just  application  of  those  principles,  in  the  course  of  the  late  negotiations,  to  the 
case  of  Spain. 

"To  acknowledge  with  gratitude  His  Majesty's  earnest  and  unwearied  en- 
deavours to  preserve  the  peace  of  Europe. 

"  To  express  our  deep  regret  that  those  endeavours  have  proved  unavailing ; 
and,  while  we  rejoice  that  His  Majesty  has  not  become  party  to  a  war  in  which 
neither  honour,  nor  treaty,  nor  the  welfare  of  His  Majesty's  dominions,  required 
His  Majesty  to  engage,  to  assure  His  Majesty  that,  highly  as  we  estimate  the 
advantages  of  peace,  particularly  at  the  present  moment,  we  shall  be  at  all 
times  ready  to  afford  to  His  Majesty  our  most  zealous  and  affectionate  support, 
wi  any  measures  which  His  Majesty  may  find  necessary  to  fulfil  the  obligations 
of  national  faith,  to  vindicate  the  dignity  of  his  Crown,  or  to  maintain  the  rights 
and  interests  of  his  people." 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  359 

Towards  the  close  of  the  discussion  that  arose  on  the  third  night  of  the  ad- 
journed debate  upon  Mr.  Macdonald's  motion  respecting  the  negotiation  relative 
to  Spain,  and  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  S.  Wortley — 


Mr.  Canning  rose,  and  said — I  am  exceedingly  sorry,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  stand  in  the  way  of  any  honourable  gentleman  who 
wishes  to  address  the  House  on  this  important  occasion.*  But, 
considering  the  length  of  time  which  the  debate  has  already  oc- 
cupied— considering  the  late  hour  to  which  we  have  now  arrived 
on  the  third  night  of  discussion — I  fear  that  my  own  strength, 
as  well  as  that  of  the  House,  would  be  exhausted,  if  I  were  longer 
to  delay  the  explanations  which  it  is  my  duty  to  offer,  of  the  con- 
duct which  His  Majesty's  Government  have  pursued,  and  of  the 
principles  by  which  they  have  been  guided,  through  a  course  of 
negotiations  as  full  of  difficulty  as  any  that  have  ever  occupied 
the  attention  of  a  ministry,  or  the  consideration  of  Parliament. 

If  gratitude  be  the  proper  description  of  that  sentiment  which 
one  feels  towards  the  unconscious  bestower  of  an  unintended  ben- 
efit, I  acknowledge  myself  sincerely  grateful  to  the  honourable 
gentleman  (Mr.  Macdonald)  who  has  introduced  the  present  mo- 
tion. Although  I  was  previously  aware  that  the  conduct  of  the 
Government  in  the  late  negotiations  had  met  with  the  individual 
concurrence  of  many,  perhaps  of  a  great  majority  of  the  members 
of  this  House;  although  I  had  received  intimations  not  to  be  mis- 
taken, of  the  general  satisfaction  of  the  country;  still,  as  from  the 
manner  in  which  the  papers  have  been  laid  before  Parliament,  it 
was  not  the  intention  of  the  Government  to  call  for  any  opinion 
upon  them,  I  feel  grateful  to  the  honourable  gentleman  who  has, 
in  so  candid  and  manly  a  manner,  brought  them  under  distinct 
discussion;  and  who,  I  hope,  will  become,  however  unwillingly, 
the  instrument  of  embodying  the  sentiments  of  individuals  and 
of  the  country  into  a  vote  of  parliamentary  approbation. 

The  Government  stands  in  a  singular  situation  with  respect  to 
these  negotiations.  They  have  maintained  peace:  they  have 
avoided  war.  Peace  or  war — the  one  or  the  other — is  usually 
the  result  of  negotiations  between  independent  states.  But  all 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  with  one  or  two  exceptions  (ex- 
ceptions which  I  mention  with  honour,)  have  set  out  with  declar- 
ing, that  whatever  the  question  before  the  House  may  be,  it  is 
not  a  question  of  peace  or  war.  Now  this  does  appear  to  me  to 
be  a  most  whimsical  declaration;  especially  when  I  recollect,  that 
before  this  debate  commenced,  it  was  known — it  was  not  disguis- 

*  Several  gentlemen  rose  at  the  same  time  with  Mr.  Canning,  to  address  the 
House,  but,  they  resumed  their  seats,  as  the  call  for  Mr.  Canning  became  loud 
and  general. — Ed. 


360  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

ed,  it  was  vaunted  without  scruple  or  reserve — that  the  disposi- 
tions of  those  opposed  to  Ministers  were  most  heroically  warlike. 
It  was  not  denied  that  they  considered  hostilities  with  France  to 
be  desirable  as  well  as  necessary,  The  cry  "  to  arms"  was  raised, 
and  caps  were  thrown  up  for  war,  from  a  crowd  which,  if  not 
numerous,  was  yet  loud  in  their  exclamations.  But  now,  when 
we  come  to  inquire  whence  these  manifestations  of  feeling  pro- 
ceeded, two  individuals  only  have  acknowledged  that  they  have 
joined  in  the  cry;  and  for  the  caps  which  have  been  picked  up  it 
is  difficult  to  find  a  wearer. 

But,  Sir,  whatever  may  be  contended  to  be  the  question  now 
before  the  House,  the  question  which  the  Government  had  to 
consider,  and  on  which  they  had  to  decide,  was — peace  or  war? 
Disguise  or  overshadow  it  how  you  will,  that  question  was  at  the 
bottom  of  all  our  deliberations;  and  I  have  a  right  to  require  that 
the  negotiations  should  be  considered  with  reference  to  that  ques- 
tion; and  to  the  decision,  which,  be  it  right  or  wrong,  we  early 
adopted  upon  that  question — the  decision  that  war  was  to  be 
avoided,  and  peace,  if  possible,  maintained. 

How  can  we  discuss  with  fairness,  I  might  say  with  common 
sense,  any  transactions,  unless  in  reference  to  the  object  which 
was  in  the  view  of  those  who  carried  them  on  ?  I  repeat  it,  wheth- 
er gentlemen  in  this  House  do  or  do  not  consider  the  question  to 
be  one  of  peace  or  war,  the  Ministers  could  not  take  a  single  step 
in  the  late  negotiations,  till  they  had  well  weighed  that  question; 
till  they  had  determined  what  direction  ought  to  be  given  to  those 
negotiations,  so  far  as  that  question  was  concerned.  We  deter- 
mined that  it  was  our  duty,  in  the  first  instance,  to  endeavour  to 
preserve  peace  if  possible  for  all  the  world:  next,  to  endeavour  to 
preserve  peace  between  the  nations  whose  pacific  relations  appear- 
ed most  particularly  exposed  to  hazard;  and  failing  in  this,  to  pre- 
serve at  all  events  peace  for  this  country;  but  a  peace  consistent 
with  the  good  faith,  the  interests,  and  the  honour  of  the  nation. 

I  am  far  from  intending  to  assert  that  our  decision  in  this  re- 
spect is  not  a  fit  subject  of  examination.  Undoubtedly  the  conduct 
of  the  Government  is  liable  to  a  twofold  trial.  First,  was  the  ob- 
ject of  Ministers  a  right  object?  Secondly,  did  they  pursue  it  in 
a  right  way?  The  first  of  these  questions,  whether  Ministers  did 
right  in  aiming  at  the  preservation  of  peace,  I  postpone.  I  will 
return  to  the  consideration  of  it  hereafter.  My  first  inquiry  is  as 
to  the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  negotiations;  and,  in  order  to  en- 
ter into  that  inquiry,  I  must  set  out  with  assuming,  for  the  time, 
that  peace  is  the  object  which  we  ought  to  have  pursued. 

With  this  assumption,  I  proceed  to  examine,  whether  the  pa- 
pers on  the  table  show  that  the  best  means  were  employed  for 
attaining  the  given  object?  If  the  object  was  unfit,  there  is  an  end 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  361 

of  any  discussion  as  to  the  negotiations; — they  must  necessarily 
be  wrong  from  the  beginning  to  the  end;  it  is  only  in  reference 
to  their  fitness  for  the  end  proposed,  that  the  papers  themselves 
can  be  matter  worthy  of  discussion. 

In  reviewing,  then,  the  course  of  these  negotiations,  as  directed 
to  maintain,  first,  the  peace  of  Europe;  secondly,  the  peace  be- 
tween France  and  Spain;  and  lastly,  peace  for  this  country,  they 
divide  themselves  naturally  into  three  heads: — first,  the  negotia- 
tions at  Verona;  secondly,  those  with  France;  and  thirdly,  those 
with  Spain.     Of  each  of  these  in  their  order. 

I  say,  emphatically,  in  their  order;  because  there  can  be  no 
greater  fallacy  than  that  which  has  pervaded  the  arguments  of 
many  honourable  gentlemen,  who  have  taken  up  expressions  used 
in  one  stage  of  these  negotiations,  and  applied  them  to  another. 
An  honourable  baronet  (Sir  F.  Burdett,)  for  instance,  who  ad- 
dressed the  House  last  night,  employed, — or,  I  should  rather  say, 
adopted — a  fallacy  of  this  sort,  with  respect  to  an  expression  of 
mine  in  the  extract  of  a  despatch  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington, 
which  stands  second  in  the  first  series  of  papers.  It  is  but  just 
to  the  honourable  baronet  to  admit  that  his  observation  was  adopted, 
not  original;  because,  in  a  speech  eminent  for  its  ability,  and  for  its 
fairness  of  reasoning  (however  I  may  disagree  both  with  its  prin- 
ciples and  its  conclusions,)  this,  which  he  condescended  to  borrow, 
was  in  truth  the  only  very  weak  and  ill-reasoned  part.  By  my 
despatch  of  the  27th  of  September,  the  Duke  of  Wellington  was 
instructed  to  declare,  that  "  to  any  interference  by  force  or  menace 
on  the  part  of  the  allies  against  Spain,  come  what  may,  His  Ma- 
jesty will  not  be  party."  Upon  this  the  honourable  baronet,  bor- 
rowing, as  I  have  said,  the  remark  itself,  and  borrowing  also  the 
air  of  astonishment,  which,  as  I  am  informed,  was  assumed  by 
the  noble  proprietor  of  the  remark,  in  another  place  exclaimed 
'•'come  what  may!'  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  ambiguous 
menace,  this  mighty  phrase, '  that  thunders  in  the  index  ?' — '  Come 
what  may!'  Surely  a  denunciation  of  war  is  to  follow. — But  no — 
no  such  thing. — Only — come  what  may — '  His  Majesty  will  be 
no  party  to  such  proceedings.'  Was  ever  such  a  bathos!  Such  a 
specimen  of  sinking  in  policy?  '  Quid  (lignum  tanto  feret  hie 
promissor  hialu?'  " 

Undoubtedly,  Sir,  if  the  honourable  baronet  could  show  that 
this  declaration  was  applicable  to  the  whole  course  of  the  nego- 
tiations, or  to  a  more  advanced  stage  of  them,  there  would  be 
something  in  the  remark,  and  in  the  inference  which  he  wished 
to  be  drawn  from  it.  But,  before  the  declaration  is  condemned 
as  utterly  feeble  and  inconclusive,  let  us  consider  what  was  the 
question  to  which  it  was  intended  as  an  answer? — That  question, 
Sir,  was  not  as  to  what  England  would  do  in  a  war  between  France 

lv  GG 


362  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

and  Spain;  but  as  to  what  part  she  would  take,  if,  in  the  Congress 
at  Verona,  a  determination  should  be  avowed  by  the  allies  to 
interfere  forcibly  into  the  affairs  of  Spain?  What  then  was  the 
meaning  of  the  answer  to  that  proposition, — that  "  come  what 
might,  His  Majesty  would  be  no  party  to  such  a  project?"  Why, 
plamly  that  His  Majesty  would  not  concur  in  such  a  determina- 
tion, even  though  a  difference  with  his  allies,  even  though  the  dis- 
solution of  the  alliance  should  be  the  consequence  of  his  refusal. 
The  answer,  therefore,  was  exactly  adapted  to  the  question.  This 
specimen  of  the  bathos,  this  instance  of  perfection  in  the  art  of 
sinking,  as  it  has  been  described  to  be,  had  its  effect;  and  the  Con- 
gress separated  without  determining  in  favour  of  any  joint  opera- 
tion of  a  hostile  character  against  Spain. 

Sir,  it  is  as  true  in  politics,  as  in  mechanics,  that  the  test  of 
skill  and  of  success  is  to  achieve  the  greatest  purpose  with  the 
least  power.  If,  then,  it  be  found  that,  by  this  little  intimation, 
we  gained  the  object  that  we  sought  for,  where  was  the  necessity 
for  greater  flourish  or  greater  pomp  of  words?  An  idle  waste  of 
effort  wTould  only  have  risked  the  loss  of  the  object  which  by 
temperance  we  gained! 

But  where  is  the  testimony  in  favour  of  the  effect  which  this 
intimation  produced? — I  have  it,  both  written  and  oral.  My  first 
witness  is  the  Duke  Mathieu  de  Montmorency;  who  states,  in  his 
official  note  of  the  26th  of  December,  that  the  measures  conceived 
and  proposed  at  Verona  "  would  have  been  completely  successful, 
if  England  had  thought  herself  at  liberty  to  concur  in  them." 
Such  was  the  opinion  entertained  by  the  Plenipotentiary  of  France 
of  the  failure  at  Verona,  and  of  the  cause  of  that  failure.  What 
was  the  opinion  of  Spain  ?  My  voucher  for  that  opinion  is  the 
despatch  from  Sir  W.  A'Court  of  the  7th  of  January;  in  which 
he  describes  the  comfort  and  relief  that  were  felt  by  the  Spanish 
Government,  when  they  learnt  that  the  Congress  at  Verona  had 
broken  up  with  no  other  result,  than  the  bruta  fulmina  of  the 
three  despatches  from  the  courts  in  alliance  with  France.  The 
third  witness  whom  I  produce,  and  not  the  least  important,  be- 
cause an  unwilling  and  most  unexpected,  and  in  this  case  surely  a 
most  unsuspected  witness,  is  the  honourable  member  for  West- 
minster (Mr.  Hobhouse,)  who  seems  to  have  had  particular  sources 
of  information  as  to  what  was  passing  at  the  Congress.  Accord- 
ing to  the  anti-chamber  reports  which  were  furnished  to  the  hon- 
ourable member  (and  which,  though  not  always  the  most  authen- 
tic, were  in  this  instance  tolerably  correct,)  it  appears  that  there 
was  to  be  no  joint  declaration  against  Spain;  and  it  was,  it  seems, 
generally  understood  at  Verona,  that  the  instructions  given  to  His 
Majesty's  Plenipotentiary,  by  the  liberal, — I  beg  pardon,  to  be 
quite  accurate  I  am  afraid  I  must  say,  the  radical — Foreign  Min- 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN.  3G3 

ister  of  England,  were  the  cause.  Now  the  essence  of  those  in- 
structions were  comprised  in  that  little  sentence,  which  has  been 
so  much  criticised  for  meagreness  and  insufficiency. 

In  this  case,  then,  the  English  Government  is  impeached,  not 
for  failure,  but  for  success;  and  the  honourable  baronet,  with  taste 
not  his  own,  has  expressed  himself  dissatisfied  with  that  success, 
only  because  the  machinery  employed  to  produce  it  did  not  make 
noise  enough  in  its  operation. 

I  contend,  Sir,  that,  whatever  might  grow  out  of  a  separate  con- 
flict between  Spain  and  France  (though  matter  for  grave  consid- 
eration) was  less  to  be  dreaded,  than  that  all  the  great  Powers  of 
the  continent  should  have  been  arrayed  together  against  Spain; 
and  that  although  the  first  object,  in  point  of  importance,  indeed, 
was  to  keep  the  peace  altogether — to  prevent  any  war  against 
Spain — the  first,  in  point  of  time,  was  to  prevent  a  general  war; 
to  change  the  question  from  a  question  between  the  allies  on  one 
side,  and  Spain  on  the  other,  to  a  question  between  nation  and  na- 
tion. This,  whatever  the  result  might  be,  would  reduce  the  quar- 
rel to  the  size  of  ordinary  events,  and  bring  it  within  the  scope 
of  ordinary  diplomacy.  The  immediate  object  of  England,  there- 
fore, was  to  hinder  the  impress  of  a  joint  character  from  being- 
affixed  to  the  war — if  war  there  must  be — with  Spain;  to  take  care 
that  the  war  should  not  grow  out  of  an  assumed  jurisdiction  of 
the  Congress;  to  keep  within  reasonable  bounds  that  predomina- 
ting areopagitical  spirit,  which  the  memorandum  of  the  British 
Cabinet  of  May,  1820,  describes  as  "  beyond  the  sphere  of  the 
original  conception,  and  understood  principles  of  the  alliance," — 
"  an  alliance  never  intended  as  a  union  for  the  government  of  the 
world,  or  for  the  superintendence  of  the  internal  affairs  of  other 
states."     And  this,  I  say,  was  accomplished. 

With  respect  to  Verona,  then,  what  remains  of  accusation 
against  the  Government?  It  has  been  charged,  not  so  much  that 
the  object  of  the  Government  was  amiss,  as  that  the  negotiations 
were  conducted  in  too  low  a  tone.  But  the  case  was  obviously 
one  in  which  a  high  tone  might  have  frustrated  the  object.  I 
beg,  then,  of  the  House,  before  they  proceed  to  adopt  an  Address, 
which  exhibits  more  of  the  ingenuity  of  philologists  than  of  the 
policy  of  statesmen — before  they  found  a  censure  of  the  Govern- 
ment for  its  conduct  in  negotiations  of  transcendent  practical  im- 
portance, upon  refinements  of  grammatical  nicety — I  beg  that 
they  will  at  least  except  from  the  proposed  censure,  the  transac- 
tions at  Verona,  where  I  think  I  have  shown  that  a  tone  of  re- 
proach and  invective  was  unnecessary,  and,  therefore,  would  have 
been  misplaced. 

Among  those  who  have  made  unjust  and  unreasonable  objec- 
tions to  the   tone  of  our  representations  at  Verona,  I  should   he 


364  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN. 

grieved  to  include  the  honourable  member  for  Bramber  (Mr.  Wil- 
berforce,)  with  whose  mode  of  thinking  I  am  too  well  acquainted, 
not  to  be  aware  that  his  observations  are  founded  on  other  and 
higher  motives  than  those  of  political  controversy.  My  honour- 
able friend,  through  a  long  and  amiable  life,  has  mixed  in  the  busi- 
ness of  the  world  without  being  stained  by  its  contaminations:  and 
he,  in  consequence,  is  apt  to  place — I  will  not  say  too  high,  but 
higher,  I  am  afraid,  than  the  ways  of  the  world  will  admit,  the 
standard  of  political  morality.  I  fear  my  honourable  friend  is 
not  aware  how  difficult  it  is  to  apply  to  politics  those  pure,  ab- 
stract principles  which  are  indispensable  to  the  excellence  of  pri- 
vate ethics.  Had  we  employed  in  the  negotiations  that  serious 
moral  strain  which  he  might  have  been  more  inclined  to  approve, 
many  of  the  gentlemen  opposed  to  me  would,  I  doubt  not,  have 
complained,  that  we  had  taken  a  leaf  from  the  book  of  the  Holy 
Alliance  itself;  that  we  had  framed  in  their  own  language  a  cant- 
ing protest  against  their  purposes,  not  in  the  spirit  of  sincere  dis- 
sent, but  the  better  to  cover  our  connivance.  My  honourable 
friend,  I  admit,  would  not  have  been  of  the  number  of  those  who 
would  have  so  accused  us:  but  he  may  be  assured  that  he  would 
have  been  wholly  disappointed  in  the  practical  result  of  our  di- 
dactic reprehensions.  In  truth,  the  principle  of  non-interference 
is  one  on  which  we  were  already  irrecoverably  at  variance  in  opin- 
ion with  the  allies;  it  was  no  longer  debateable  ground.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  alliance  upholds  the  doctrine  of  an  European  police; 
this  country,  on  the  other  hand,  as  appears  from  the  memorandum 
already  quoted,  protests  against  that  doctrine.  The  question  is, 
in  fact,  settled,  as  many  questions  are,  by  each  party  retaining  its 
own  opinions;  and  the  points  reserved  for  debate  are  points  only 
of  practical  application.  To  such  a  point  it  was  that  we  directed 
our  efforts  at  Verona. 

There  are  those,  however,  who  think  that  with  a  view  of  con- 
ciliating the  continental  powers,  and  of  winning  them  away  the 
more  readily  from  their  purposes,  we  should  have  addressed  them 
as  tyrants  and  despots — tramplers  on  the  rights  and  liberties  of 
mankind.  This  experiment  would,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  be  a 
very  singular  one  in  diplomacy.  It  may  be  possible,  though  I 
think  not  very  probable,  that  the  allies  would  have  borne  such  an 
address  with  patience;  that  they  would  have  retorted  only  with 
the  "  whispering  humbleness"  of  Shy  lock  in  the  play,  and  said, — 

"  Fair  Sir,  you  spit  on  me  on  Wednesday  last ; 
You  spurn'd  me  such  a  day ;  another  time 
You  called  me — dog ;  and,  for  these  courtesies," 

"we  are  ready  to  comply  with  whatever  you  desire."  This,  I 
say,  may  be  possible.  But  I  confess  I  would  rather  make  such 
an  experiment,  when  the  issue  of  it  was  matter  of  more  indiffer- 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  365 

ence.     Till  then,  I  shall  be  loth  to  employ  towards  our  allies  a 

language,  to  which  if  they  yielded,  we  should  ourselves  despise 

them.     I  doubt  whether  it  is  wise,  even  in  this  House,  to  indulge 

in  such  a  strain  of  rhetoric;  to  call  "wretches"  and  "barbarians," 

and  a  hundred  other  hard   names,  powers  with  whom,  after  all,  if 

the  map  of  Europe  cannot  be  altogether  cancelled,  we  must,  even 

according  to  the  admission  of  the  most  anti-continental  politicians, 

maintain  some  internal  intercourse.    I  doubt  whether  these  sallies 

of  raillery — these  flowers  of  Billingsgate — are  calculated  to  sooth, 

any  more  than  to  adorn;  wdiether,  on  some  occasion  or  other,  we 

may  not  find  that  those  on  whom  they  are  lavished  have  not  been 

utterly  unsusceptibe  of  feelings  of  irritation  and  resentment. — 

" Medio  de  fonte  leporum 

Surget  amari  aliquid,  quod  in  ipsis  floribus  angat." 

But  be  the  language  of  good  sense  or  good  taste  in  this  House 
what  it  may,  clear  I  am  that,  in  diplomatic  correspondence,  no 
Minister  would  be  justified  in  risking  the  friendship  of  foreign 
countries,  and  the  peace  of  his  own,  by  coarse  reproach  and  gall- 
ing invective;  and  that  even  while  we  are  pleading  for  the  inde- 
pendence of  nations,  it  is  expedient  to  respect  the  independence 
of  those  with  whom  we  plead.  We  differ  widely  from  our  con- 
tinental allies  on  one  great  principle,  it  is  true:  nor  do  we,  nor 
ought  we  to  disguise  that  difference;  nor  to  omit  any  occasion  of 
practically  upholding  our  own  opinion.  But  every  consideration, 
whether  of  policy  or  of  justice,  combines  with  the  recollection 
of  the  counsels  which  we  have  shared,  and  of  the  deeds  which 
we  have  achieved  in  concert  and  companionship,  to  induce  us  to 
argue  our  differences  of  opinion,  however  freely,  with  temper; 
and  to  enforce  them,  however  firmly,  without  insult. 

Before  I  quit  Verona,  there  are  other  detached  objections  which 
have  been  urged  against  our  connexion  with  the  Congress,  of 
which  it  may  be  proper  to  take  notice.  It  has  been  asked  why 
we  sent  a  Plenipotentiary  to  the  Congress  at  all  ?  It  may,  per- 
haps, be  right  here  to  observe,  that  it  was  not  originally  intended 
to  send  the  British  Plenipotentiary  to  Verona.  The  Congress  at 
Verona  was  originally  convened  solely  for  the  consideration  of 
the  affairs  of  Italy,  with  which,  the  House  is  aware,  England  had 
declined  to  interfere  two  years  before.  England  was,  therefore, 
not  to  participate  in  those  proceedings;  and  all  that  required  her 
participation  was  to  be  arranged  in  a  previous  Congress  at  Vienna. 
But  circumstances  had  delayed  the  Duke  of  Wellington's  depart- 
ure from  England,  so  that  he  did  not  reach  Vienna  till  many 
weeks  after  the  time  appointed.  The  sovereigns  had  waited  to 
the  lost  hour  consistent  with  their  Italian  arrangemenls.  The 
option  u;is  given  1o  our  Plenipotentiary  to  meet  them  on  their 
return  to  Vienna;  but  it  was  thought,  upon  the  whole,  more  con- 

UG* 


3G6  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

venient  to  avoid  further  delay;    and  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
therefore  proceeded  to  Verona. 

Foremost  among  the  objects  intended  to  be  discussed  at  Vienna, 
was  the  impending  danger  of  hostilities  between  Russia  and  the 
Porte.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that,  when  I  accepted  the 
seals  of  office,  that  was  the  object  to  which  the  anxiety  of  the 
British  Government  was  principally  directed.  The  negotiations 
at  Constantinople  had  been  carried  on  through  the  British  Am- 
bassador. So  completely  had  this  business  been  placed  in  the 
hands  of  Lord  Strangford,  that  it  was  thought  necessary  to  sum- 
mon him  to  Vienna.  Undoubtedly  it  might  be  presumed,  from 
facts  which  were  of  public  notoriety,  that  the  affairs  of  Spain 
could  not  altogether  escape  the  notice  of  the  assembled  Sover- 
eigns and  Ministers;  but  the  bulk  of  the  instructions  which  had 
been  prepared  for  the  Duke  of  Wellington  related  to  the  disputes 
between  Russia  and  the  Porte:  and  how  little  the  British  Gov- 
ernment expected  that  so  prominent  a  station  would  be  assigned 
to  the  affairs  of  Spain,  may  be  inferred  from  the  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington's finding  it  necessary  to  write  from  Paris  for  specific  in- 
structions on  that  subject. 

But  it  is  said,  that  Spain  ought  to  have  been  invited  to  send  a 
Plenipotentiary  to  the  Congress.  So  far  as  Great  Britain  is  con- 
cerned, I  answer — in  the  first  place,  as  we  did  not  wish  the  affairs 
of  Spain  to  be  brought  into  discussion  at  all,  we  could  not  take  or 
suggest  a  preliminary  step  which  would  have  seemed  to  recog- 
nize the  necessity  of  such  a  discussion.  In  the  next  place,  if 
Spain  had  been  invited,  the  answer  to  that  invitation  might  have 
produced  a  contrary  effect  to  that  which  we  aimed  at  producing. 
Spain  must  either  have  sent  a  Plenipotentiary,  or  have  refused  to 
do  so.  The  refusal  would  not  have  failed  to  be  taken  by  the  allies 
as  a  proof  of  the  duresse  of  the  King  of  Spain.  The  sending 
one,  if  sent  (as  he  must  have  been)  jointly  by  the  King  of  Spain 
and  the  Cortes,  would  at  once  have  raised  the  whole  question  of 
the  legitimacy  of  the  existing  Government  of  Spain,  and  would, 
almost  to  a  certainty,  have  led  to  a  joint  declaration  from  the 
alliance,  such  as  it  was  our  special  object  to  avoid. 

But  was  there  any  thing  in  the  general  conduct  of  Great  Britain 
at  Verona,  which  lowered,  as  has  been  asserted,  the  character  of 
England  ?  Nothing  like  it.  Our  Ambassador  at  Constantinople 
returned  from  Verona  to  his  post,  with  full  powers,  from  Russia, 
to  treat  on  her  behalf  with  the  Turkish  Government;  from  which 
Government,  on  the  other  hand,  he  enjoys  as  full  confidence  as 
perhaps  any  power  ever  gave  to  one  of  its  own  Ambassadors. 
Such  is  the  manifest  decay  of  our  authority, — so  fallen  in  the 
eyes  of  all  mankind  is  the  character  of  this  country,  that  two  of 
the  greatest  states  of  the  world  are  content  to  arrange  their  dif- 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  367 

ferences  through  a  British  Minister,  from  reliance  on  British 
influence,  and  from  confidence  in  British  equity  and  British 
wisdom! 

Such  then  was  the  issue  of  the  Congress,  as  to  the  question  be- 
tween Russia  and  the  Porte;  the  question  (I  beg  it  to  be  remem- 
bered) upon  which  we  expected  to  be  principally  if  not  entirely 
engaged  at  that  Congress,  if  it  had  been  held  (as  was  intended 
when  the  Duke  of  Wellington  left  London,)  at  Vienna. 

As  to  Italy,  I  have  already  said,  it  was  distinctly  understood 
that  we  had  resolved  to  take  no  share  in  the  discussions.  But  it  is 
almost  needless  to  add  that  the  evacuation  of  Naples  and  of  Pied- 
mont, was  a  measure  with  respect  to  which,  though  the  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  Great  Britain  was  not  entitled  to  give  or  to  withhold 
the  concurrence  of  his  Government,  he  could  not  but  signify  its 
cordial  approbation. 

The  result  of  the  Congress  as  to  Spain,  was  simply  the  discon 
tinuance  of  diplomatic  intercourse  with  that  power,  on  the  part 
of  Austria,  Russia,  and  Prussia;  a  step  neither  necessarily  nor 
probably  leading  to  war;  perhaps  (in  some  views)  rather  dimin- 
ishing the  risk  of  it;  a  step  which  had  been  taken  by  the  same 
monarchies  towards  Portugal  two  years  before,  without  leading 
to  any  ulterior  consequences.  The  concluding  expression  of  the 
Duke  of  Wellington's  last  note  at  Verona,  in  which  he  states  that 
all  that  great  Great  Britain  could  do  was  to  "  endeavour  to  allay 
irritation  at  Madrid,"'  describes  all  that  in  effect  was  necessary  to 
be  done  there,  after  the  Ministers  of  the  allied  powers  should  be 
withdrawn:  and  the  House  have  seen  in  Sir  W.  A 'Court's  de- 
spatches how  scrupulously  the  Duke  of  Wellington's  promise 
was  fulfilled  by  the  representations  of  our  Minister  at  Madrid. 
They  have  seen  too,  how  insignificant  the  result  of  the  Congress 
of  Verona  was  considered  at  Madrid,  in  comparison  with  what 
had  been  apprehended. 

The  result  of  the  Congress  as  to  France,  was  a  promise  of  coun- 
tenance and  support  from  the  allies  in  three  specified  hypothetical 
cases; — 1st,  of  an  attack  made,  by  Spain  on  France;  2d,  of  any 
outragc  on  the  person  of  the  King  or  Royal  Family  of  Spain;  3d, 
of  any  attempt  to  change  the  dynasty  of  that  kingdom.  Any  un- 
foreseen case,  if  any  such  should  arise,  was  to  he  the  subject  of  new 
deliberation,  either  hei  ween  court  and  court,  or  in  the  conferences 
of  their  Ministers  al  Paris. 

Ii  is  unnecessary  now  to  argue,  whether  the  cases  specified  are 
cases  which  would  justify  interference.  It  is  sufficient  for  the 
present  argument,  thai  no  one  of  these  cases  has  occurred.  France 
is  therefore  not  at  war  on  a  case  foreseen  and  provided  for  at  Ve- 
rona: and  so  far  as  I  know,  there  has  not  occurred,  since  the  Con- 
gress of  Verona,  any  new  case  to  which  the  assistance  of  the  allies 


368 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 


can  be  considered  as  pledged;  or  which  has,  in  fact,  been  made 
the  subject  of  deliberation  among  the  Ministers  of  the  several 
courts  who  were  members  of  the  Congress. 

We  quitted  Verona,  therefore,  with  the  satisfaction  of  havin°- 
prevented  any  corporate  act  of  force  or  menace,  on  the  part  of 
the  alliance,  against  Spain;  with  the  knowledge  of  the  three 
cases  on  which  alone  France  would  be  entitled  to  claim  the  sup- 
port of  her  continental  allies,  in  a  conflict  with  Spain;  and  with 
the  certainty  that  in  any  other  case  we  should  have  to  deal  with 
France  alone,  in  any  interposition  which  we  might  offer  for  avert- 
ing, or  for  terminating,  hostilities. 

From  Verona  we  now  come,  with  our  Plenipotentiary,  to  Paris. 

I  have  admitted  on  a  former  occasion,  and  I  am  perfectly  pre- 
pared to  repeat  the  admission,  that,  after  the  dissolution  of  the 
Congress  of  Verona,  we  might,  if  we  had  so  pleased,  have  with- 
drawn ourselves  altogether  from  any  communication  with  France 
upon  the  subject  of  her  Spanish  quarrel;  that,  having  succeeded 
in  preventing  a  joint  operation  against  Spain,  we  might  have  rest- 
ed satisfied  with  that  success,  and  trusted,  for  the  rest,  to  the  re- 
flections of  France  herself  on  the  hazards  of  the  project  in  her 
contemplation.  Nay,  I  will  own  that  we  did  hesitate,  whether 
we  should  not  adopt  this  more  selfish  and  cautious  policy.  But 
there  were  circumstances  attending  the  return  of  the  Duke  of 
Wellington  to  Paris,  which  directed  our  decision  another  way. 
In  the  first  place,  we  found,  on  the  Duke  of  Wellington's  arrival 
in  that  capital,  that  M.  de  Villele  had  sent  back  to  Verona  the 
drafts  of  the  despatches  of  the  three  continental  allies  to  their 
Ministers  at  Madrid,  which  M.  de  Montmorency  had  brought 
with  him  from  the  Congress; — had  sent  them  back  for  re-consid- 
eration;— whether  with  a  view  to  obtain  a  change  in  their  context, 
or  to  prevent  their  being  forwarded  to  their  destination  at  all, 
did  not  appear:  but,  be  that  as  it  might,  the  reference  itself  was  a 
proof  of  vacillation,  if  not  of  change  in  the  French  counsels. 

In  the  second  place,  it  was  notorious  that  a  change  was  likely 
to  take  place  in  the  Cabinet  of  the  Tuilleries,  which  did  in  fact 
take  place  shortly  afterwards,  by  the  retirement  of  M.  de  Mont- 
morency: and  M.  de  Montmorency  was  as  notoriously  the  adviser 
of  war  against  Spain. 

In  the  third  place,  it  was  precisely  at  the  time  of  the  Duke  of 
Wellington's  return  to  Paris,  that  we  received  a  direct  and  press- 
ing overture  from  the  Spanish  Government,  which  placed  us  in 
the  alternative  of  either  affording  our  good  offices  to  Spain,  or  of 
refusing  them. 

This  last  consideration  would  perhaps  alone  have  been  decisive; 
but  when  it  was  coupled  with  the  others  which  I  have  stated,  and 
with  the  hopes  of  doing  good  which  they  inspired,  I  think  it  will 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  369 

be  conceded  to  me,  that  we  should  have  Incurred  a  fearful  respon- 
sibility, if  we  had  not  consented  to  make  the  effort,  which  we  did 
make,  to  effect  an  adjustment  between  France  and  Spain,  through 
our  mediation. 

Add  to  this, — that  the  question  which  we  had  now  to  discuss 
with  France  was  a  totally  new  question.  It  was  no  longer  a  ques- 
tion as  to  that  general  right  of  interference,  which  we  had  dis- 
claimed and  denied — disclaimed  for  ourselves,  and  denied  for 
others, — in  the  conferences  at  Verona.  France  knew  that  upon 
that  question  our  opinion  was  formed,  and  was  unalterable.  Our 
mediation  therefore,  if  accepted  by  France,  set  out  with  the  plain 
and  admitted  implication,  that  the  discussion  must  turn,  not  on 
the  general  principle,  but  upon  a  case  of  exception  to  be  made  out 
by  France,  showing,  to  our  satisfaction,  wherein  Spain  had  offend- 
ed and  aggrieved  her. 

It  has  been  observed,  as  if  it  were  an  inconsistency,  that  at  Ve- 
rona a  discouraging  answer  had  been  given  by  our  Plenipotentiary 
to  a  hint  that  it  might,  perhaps,  be  advisable  for  us  to  offer  our 
mediation  with  Spain;  but  that  no  sooner  had  the  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington arrived  at  Paris,  than  he  was  instructed  to  offer  that  me- 
diation. Undoubtedly  this  is  true:  and  the  difference  is  one  which 
flows  out  of,  and  verifies,  the  entire  course  of  our  policy  at  Verona. 
We  declined  mediating  between  Spain  and  an  alliance  assuming 
to  itself  that  character  of  general  superintendence  of  the  concerns 
of  nations.  But  a  negotiation  between  kingdom  and  kingdom,  in 
the  old,  intelligible,  accustomed,  European  form,  was  precisely 
the  issue  to  which  we  were  desirous  of  bringing  the  dispute  be- 
tween France  and  Spain.  We  eagerly  grasped  at  this  chance  of 
preserving  peace;  and  the  more  eagerly  because,  as  I  have  before 
said,  we  received,  at  that  precise  moment,  the  application  from 
Spain  for  our  good  offices. 

But  France  refused  our  offered  mediation:  and  it  has  been  rep- 
resented by  some  gentlemen,  that  the  refusal  of  our  mediation 
by  France  was  an  affront  which  we  ought  to  have  resented.  Sir, 
speaking  not  of  this  particular  instance  only,  but  generally  of  the 
policy  of  nations,  I  contend,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that 
the  refusal  of  a  mediation  is  no  affront;  and  that,  after  the  refusal 
of  mediation,  to  accept  or  to  tender  good  offices  is  no  humiliation. 
I  beg  leave  to  cite  an  authority  on  such  points,  which,  I  think, 
will  not  be:  disputed.  Martens,  in  the  dissertation  which  is  pre- 
fixed to  his  collection  of  treaties,  distinguishing  between  media- 
tion and  good  offices,  lays  it  down  expressly,  that  a  nation  may 
accept  the  good  offices  of  another  after  rejecting  her  mediation. 
The  following  is  the  passage  to  which  I  refer: 

"  Amicable   negotiations  may  take  place,  either  between  the 
Powers  themselves  between  whom  a  dispute  has  arisen,  or  jointly 
49 


370  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN. 

1 

with  a  third  Power.  The  part  to  be  taken  by  the  latter,  for  the 
purpose  of  ending  the  dispute,  differs  essentially  according  to  one 
or  other  of  two  cases;  whether  the  Power,  in  the  first  place,  mere- 
ly interposes  its  good  offices  to  bring  about  an  agreement;  or,  sec- 
ondly, is  chosen  by  the  two  parties,  to  act  as  a  mediator  between 
them."  And  he  adds — "  mediation  differs  essentially  from  good 
offices;  a  state  may  accept  the  latter,  at  the  same  time  that  it  re- 
jects mediation."* 

If  there  were  any  affront,  indeed,  in  this  case,  it  was  an  affront 
received  equally  from  both  parties;  for  Spain  also  declined  our  me- 
diation, after  having  solicited  our  good  offices,  and  solicited  again 
our  good  offices,  after  declining  our  mediation.  Nor  is  the  distinc- 
tion, however  apparently  technical,  so  void  of  reason  as  it  may  at 
first  sight  appear.  There  did  not  exist  between  France  and  Spain 
that  corporeal,  that  material,  that  external  ground  of  dispute,  on 
which  a  mediation  could  operate.  The  offence,  on  the  side  of  each 
party,  was  an  offence  rankling  in  the  minds  of  each,  from  a  long 
course  of  irritating  discussions;  it  was  to  be  allayed  rather  by  appeal 
to  the  good  sense  of  the  parties,  than  by  reference  to  any  tangible 
object.  To  illustrate  this: — suppose,  for  example,  that  France  had 
in  time  of  peace  possessed  herself,  by  a  coup-de-main,  of  Minor- 
ca; or  suppose  any  unsettled  pecuniary  claims,  on  one  side  or  the 
other,  or  any  litigation  with  respect  to  territory;  a  mediator  might 
be  called  in,  in  the  first  case  to  recommend  restitution,  in  the 
others  to  estimate  the  amount  of  claim,  or  to  adjust  the  terms  of 
compromise.  There  would,  in  either  of  these  cases,  be  a  tangible 
object  for  mediation.  But  where  the  difference  was  not  external; 
where  it  arose  from  irritated  feelings,  from  vague  and  perhaps  ex- 
aggerated apprehensions,  from  charges  not  proved,  nor  perhaps 
capable  of  proof,  on  either  side,  in  such  cases  each  party  felt  that 
there  was  nothing  definite  and  precise  which  either  could  submit 
to  the  decision  of  a  judge,  or  to  the  discretion  of  an  arbitrator; 
though  each  might  at  the  same  time  feel  that  the  good  offices  of  a 
third  party,  friendly  to  both,  would  be  well  employed  to  sooth 
exasperation,  to  suggest  concession,  and  without  probing  too  deep- 
ly the  merits  of  the  dispute,  to  exhort  to  mutual  forbearance  and 
oblivion.  The  difference  is  perfectly  intelligible;  and,  in  fact,  on 
the  want  of  a  due  appreciation  of  the  nature  of  that  difference, 

*  "  Les  negociations  a  l'aimable  peuvent  avoir  lieu  entre  les  Puissances  seules 
entre  lesquelles  la  dispute  s'est  elevee,  soit  avec  le  concours  d'une  tierce  Puis- 
sance. La  part  que  celle-ci  peut  prendre  pour  terminer  le  litige,  differe  essen- 
tiellement  d'apres  que  1°  Elle  interpose  seulement  ses  bons  offices  pour  moyen- 
ner  un  accommodement,  ou  que  2°  Elle  est  choisi  par  les  deux  parties  pour  leur 
servir  de  mediateur." — Martens  Droit  de  Gens,  Tome  VI.  p.  328. — And  he 
subjoins  in  a  note, — "  La  mediation  differe  essentiellement  de  l'interposition  de 
bons  offices ;  on  peut  accepter  ceux-ci,  et  rejetter  la  mediation." 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN.  371 

turns  much  ©f  the  objection  which  has  been  raised  against  our 
having  suggested  concession  to  Spain. 

Our  mediation  then,  as  I  have  said,  was  refused  by  Spain  as 
well  as  by  France:  but  before  it  was  offered  to  France,  our  good 
offices  had  been  asked  by  Spain.  They  were  asked  in  the  des- 
patch of  M.  San  Miguel,  which  has  been  quoted  with  so  much 
praise,  a  praise  in  which  I  have  no  indisposition  to  concur.  I 
agree  in  admiring  that  paper  for  its  candour,  manliness,  and  sim- 
plicity. But  the  honourable  member  for  Westminster  has  misun- 
derstood the  early  part  of  it.  He  has  quoted  it,  as  if  it  complained 
of  some  want  of  kindness  on  the  part  of  the  British  Government 
towards  Spain.  The  complaint  was  quite  of  another  sort.  It  com- 
plained of  want  of  communication  from  this  Government  of  what 
was  passing  at  Verona.  The  substance  of  this  complaint  was  true; 
but  in  that  want  of  communication  there  was  no  want  of  kindness. 
The  date  of  M.  San  Miguel's  despatch  is  the  15th  of  November; 
the  Congress  did  not  close  till  the  29th.  It  is  true  that  I  declined 
making  any  communication  to  Spain,  of  the  transactions  which 
were  passing  at  Verona,  whilst  the  Congress  was  still  sitting.  I 
appeal  to  any  man  of  honour,  whether  it  would  not  have  been  un- 
generous to  our  allies,  to  make  such  a  communication,  so  long  as 
we  entertained  the  smallest  hope  that  the  result  of  the  Congress 
might  not  be  hostile  to  Spain;  and  whether,  considering  the  pecu- 
liar situation  in  which  we  were  placed  at  that  time,  by  the  nego- 
tiation which  we  were  carrying  on  at  Madrid  for  the  adjustment 
of  our  claims  upon  the  Spanish  Government,  such  a  communica- 
tion would  not  have  been  liable  to  the  suspicion  that  we  were 
courting  favour  with  Spain,  at  the  expense  of  our  allies,  for  our 
own  separate  objects?  We  might,  to  be  sure,  have  said  to  her, 
"  You  complain  of  our  reserve,  but  you  don't  know  how  stoutly 
we  are  fighting  your  battles  at  Verona."  But,  Sir,  I  did  hope 
that  she  never  would  have  occasion  to  know  that  such  battles  had 
been  fought  for  her.  She  never  should  have  known  it,  if  the  ne- 
gotiations had  turned  out  favourably.  When  the  result  proved 
unfavourable,  I  immediately  made  a  full  disclosure  of  what  had 
passed;  and  with  that  disclosure,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say,  the 
Spanish  Government  were,  so  far  as  Great  Britain  was  con- 
cerned, entirely  satisfied.  The  expressions  of  that  satisfaction 
are  scattered  through  Sir  W.  A'Court's  reports  of  M.  San  Mi- 
guel's subsequent  conversations;  and  are  to  be  found  particularly 
in  M.  San  Miguel's  note  to  Sir  William  A'Court,  of  the  12th  of 
January. 

In  the  subsequent  part  of  the  despatch  of  M.  San  Miguel,  of 
the  15th  of  November,  (which  we  are  now  considering)  that  Min- 
ister defines  the  course  which  he  wishes  Great  Britain  to  pursue; 
and  I  desire  to  be  judged  and  justified  in  the  eyes  of  the  warmest 


372  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

advocate  for  Spain,  by  no  other  rules  than  those  laid  down  in  that 
despatch. 

"  The  acts  to  which  I  allude,"  says  M.  San  Miguel,  "  would  in 
no  wise  compromise  the  most  strictly  conceived  system  of  neu- 
trality. Good  offices,  counsels,  the  reflections  of  one  friend  in 
favour  of  another,  do  not  place  a  nation  in  concert  of  attack  or 
defence  with  another,  do  not  expose  it  to  the  enmity  of  the  oppo- 
site party,  even  if  they  do  not  deserve  its  gratitude;  they  are  not 
(in  a  word)  effective  aid,  troops,  arms,  subsidies,  which  augment 
the  force  of  one  of  the  contending  parties.  It  is  of  reason  only 
that  we  are  speaking;  and  it  is  with  the  pen  of  conciliation  that  a 
power,  situated  like  Great  Britain,  might  support  Spain,  without 
exposing  herself  to  take  part  in  a  war,  which  she  may  perhaps 
prevent,  with  general  utility."  Again — "  England  might  act  in 
this  manner;  being  able,  ought  she  so  to  act?  and  if  she  ought,  has 
she  acted  so?  In  the  wise,  just  and  generous  views  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  St.  James's,  no  other  answer  can  exist  than  the  affirm- 
ative. Why  then  does  she  not  notify  to  Spain  what  has  been 
done,  and  what  it  is  proposed  to  do  in  that  mediatory  sense  {en 
aquel  sentido  mediador?)  Are  there  weighty  inconveniences 
which  enjoin  discretion,  which  show  the  necessity  of  secrecy  ? 
They  do  not  appear  to  an  ordinary  penetration." 

I  have  already  told  the  House  why  I  had  not  made  such  a  noti- 
fication; I  have  told  them  also  that  as  soon  as  the  restraint  of 
honour  was  removed,  I  did  make  it;  and  that  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment was  perfectly  satisfied  with  it.  And  with  respect  to  the 
part  which  I  have  just  quoted  of  the  despatch  of  M.  San  Miguel, 
that  in  which  he  solicits  our  good  offices,  and  points  out  the  mode 
in  whieh  they  are  to  be  applied,  I  am  sure  the  House  will  see 
that  we  scrupulously  followed  his  suggestions. 

Most  true  it  is,  and  lamentable  as  true,  that  our  representations 
to  France  were  not  successful.  The  honourable  member  for 
Westminster  attributes  our  failure  to  the  intrigues  of  Russia;  and 
has  told  us  of  a  bet  made  by  the  Russian  Ambassador  in  a  coffee- 
house at  Paris,  that  he  would  force  France  into  a  war  with  Spain. 

(Mr.  Hobhouse  disclaimed  this  version  of  his  words.  He  had 
put  it  as  a  conjecture.) 

I  assure  the  honourable  gentleman  that  I  understood  him  to 
state  it  as  a  fact:  but  if  it  was  only  conjecture,  it  is  of  a  piece 
with  the  whole  of  the  address  which  he  supports;  every  para- 
graph of  which  teems  with  guesses  and  suppositions,  equally 
groundless. 

The  honourable  member  for  Bridgenorth  (Mr.  Whitmore)  has 
given  a  more  correct  opinion  of  the  cause  of  the  war.  I  believe, 
with  him,  that  the  war  was  forced  on  the  French  Government 
by  the  violence  of  a  political  party  in  France.     I  believe  that  at 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  373 

one  time  the  French  Government  hoped  to  avert  it:  and  that,  up 
to  the  latest  period,  some  members  of  that  Cabinet  would  gladly 
have  availed  themselves  of  the  smallest  loophole  through  which 
the  Spanish  Government  would  have  enabled  them  to  find  their 
retreat.  But  we,  forsooth,  are  condemned  as  dupes,  because  our 
opponents  gratuitously  ascribe  to  France  one  settled,  systematic 
and  invariable  line  of  policy;  because  it  is  assumed  that,  from  the 
beginning,  France  had  but  one  purpose  in  view;  and  that  she 
merely  amused  the  British  Cabinet  from  time  to  time  with  pre- 
tences, which  we  ought  to  have  had  the  sagacity  to  detect.  If  so, 
the  French  Government  made  singular  sacrifices  to  appearance. 
M.  de  Montmorency  was  sent  to  Verona;  he  negotiated  with  the 
allies;  he  brought  home  a  result  so  satisfactory  to  France,  that  he 
was  made  a  duke  for  his  services.  He  enjoyed  his  new  title  but 
a  few  days  when  he  quitted  his  office.  On  this  occasion  I  admit 
that  I  was  a  dupe — I  believe  all  the  world  were  dupes  with  me — 
for  all  understood  this  change  of  Ministers  to  be  indicative  of  a 
change  in  the  counsels  of  the  French  Cabinet,  a  change  from  war 
to  peace.  For  eight  and  forty  hours  I  certainly  was  under  that 
delusion;  but  I  soon  found  that  it  was  only  a  change,  not  of  the 
question  of  war,  but  of  the  character  of  that  question;  a  change 
— as  it  was  somewhat  quaintly  termed — from  European  to 
French.  The  Duke  M.  de  Montmorency,  finding  himself  una- 
ble to  carry  into  effect  the  system  of  policy  which  he  had  en- 
gaged, at  the  Congress,  to  support  in  the  Cabinet  at  Paris,  in 
order  to  testify  the  sincerity  of  his  engagement,  promptly  and 
most  honourably  resigned.  But  this  event,  honourable  as  it  is  to 
the  Duke  M.  de  Montmorency,  completely  disproves  the  charge 
of  dupery  brought  against  us.  That  man  is  not  a  dupe,  who,  not 
foreseeing  the  vacillations  of  others,  is  not  prepared  to  meet 
them;  but  he  who  is  misled  by  false  pretences,  put  forward  for 
the  purpose  of  misleading  him.  Before  a  man  can  be  said  to  be 
duped,  there  must  have  been  some  settled  purpose  concealed 
from  him,  and  not  discovered  by  him;  but  here  there  was  a  varia- 
tion of  purpose;  a  variation  too,  which  so  far  from  considering  it 
then,  or  now,  as  an  evil,  we  then  hailed  and  still  consider  as  a 
good.  It  was  no  dupery  on  our  part  to  acquiesce  in  a  change  of 
counsel  on  the  part,  of  the  French  Cabinet,  which  proved  the  re- 
sult of  the  Congress  at  Verona  to  be  such  as  I  have  described  it, 
by  giving  to  the  quarrel  with  Spain  the  character  of  a  French 
quarrel. 

If  gentlemen  will  read  over  the  correspondence  about  our  offer 
of  mediation,  with  this  key,  they  will  understand  exactly  the 
meaning  of  the  difference  of  tone  between  the  Duke  M.  de  Mont- 
morency and  M.  de  Chateaubriand:  they  will  observe  that  when 
I  first  described  the  question  respecting  Spain  as  a  French  ques 

uu 


S74  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

tion,  the  Duke  de  Montmorency  loudly  maintained  it  to  be  a  ques- 
tion toute  Europeenne;  but  that  M.  de  Chateaubriand,  upon  my 
repeating  the  same  description  in  the  sequel  of  that  correspond- 
ence, admitted  it  to  be  a  question  at  once  and  equally  toute  Fran- 
paise,  et  toute  Europeenne:  an  explanation  the  exact  meaning 
of  which  I  acknowledge  I  do  not  precisely  understand;  but  which, 
if  it  does  not  distinctly  admit  the  definition  of  a  question  Fran- 
gaise,  seems  at  least  to  negative  M.  de  Montmorency's  definition 
of  a  question  toute  Europeenne. 

In  thus  unavoidably  introducing  the  names  of  the  French  Min- 
isters, I  beg  I  may  be  understood  to  speak  of  them  with  respect 
and  esteem.     Of  M.  de  Montmorency  I  have  already  said,  that 
in  voluntarily  relinquishing  his  office,  he  made   an   honourable 
sacrifice  to  the  sincerity  of  his  opinions,  and  to  the  force  of  obli- 
gations which  he  had  undertaken  but  could  not  fulfil.     As  to  M. 
de  Chateaubriand,  with  whom  I  have  the  honour  of  a  personal 
acquaintance,  I  admire  his  talents  and  his  genius;  I  believe  him 
to  be  a  man  of  an  upright  mind,  of  untainted  honour,  and  most 
capable  of  discharging  adequately  the  high  functions  of  the  sta- 
tion which  he  fills.     Whatever  I  may  think  of  the  political  con- 
duct of  the  French  Government  in  the  present  war,  I  think  this 
tribute  justly  due  to  the  individual  character  of  M.  de  Chateau- 
briand.    I   think  it  further  due  to  him  in  fairness  to  correct  a. 
misrepresentation  to  which  I  have,  however  innocently,  exposed 
him.     From  a  despatch  of   Sir  W.  A'Court,  which  has    been: 
laid  upon  the  table  of  the  House,  it  appears  as  if  M.  de  Chateau- 
briand had  spoken  of  the  failure  of  the  mission  of  Lord  F.  Som- 
erset as  of  an  event  which  had  actually  happened,  at  a  time  when 
that  nobleman  had  not  even  reached  Madrid.     I  have  recently 
received  a  corrected  copy  of  that  despatch,  in  which  the  tense 
employed  in  speaking  of  Lord  F.  Somerset's  mission  is  not  past 
but  future;  and  the  failure  of  that  mission  is  only  anticipated, 
not  announced  as  having  occurred.     The  despatch  was  sent  in 
cipher  to  M.  Lagarde  (from  whom  Sir  W.  A'Court  received  his 
copy  of  it,)  and  nothing  is  more  natural  in  such  cases  than  a  mis- 
take in  the  inflection  of  a  verb. 

It  is  also  just  to  the  French  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  to 
allude  (although  it  is  rather  out  of  place  in  this  argument)  to  an- 
other circumstance,  of  which  I  yesterday  received  an  explana- 
tion. A  strong  feeling  has  been  excited  in  this  country  by  the 
reported  capture  of  a  rich  Spanish  prize  in  the  West  Indies  by  a 
French  ship  of  war.  If  the  French  captain  had  acted  under  or- 
ders, most  unquestionably  those  orders  must  have  been  given  at  a 
time  when  the  French  Government  was  most  warm  in  its  profes- 
sions of  a  desire  to  maintain  peace.  If  this  had  been  the  case,  it 
might  still  perhaps  be  doubtful  whether  this  country  ought  to  be 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  375 

the  first  to  complain.  Formal  declarations  of  war,  anterior  to 
warlike  acts,  have  been  for  some  time  growing  into  disuse  in  Eu- 
rope. The  war  in  1756,  and  the  Spanish  war  in  1804,  both,  it 
must  be  admitted,  commenced  with  premature  capture  and  antici- 
pated hostilities  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  But — be  that  as  it 
may — I  wrote  to  Sir  C.  Stuart,  as  soon  as  the  intelligence  reached 
this  country,  desiring  him  to  require  an  explanation  of  the  affair; 
the  reply,  as  I  have  said,  arrived  yesterday  by  a  telegraphic  com- 
munication from  Paris.  It  runs  thus: — "Paris,  April  28,  1S23. 
We  have  not  received  any  thing  official  as  to  the  prize  made  by 
the  Jean  Bart.  This  vessel  had  no  instructions  to  make  any  such 
capture.  If  this  capture  has  really  been  made,  there  must  have 
been  seme  particular  circumstances  which  were  the  cause  of  it. 
In  any  case,  the  French  Government  will  see  justice  done." — I 
have  thought  it  right  to  clear  up  this  transaction,  and  to  show  the 
promptitude  of  the  French  Government  in  giving  the  required 
explanation.  I  now  return  to  the  more  immediate  subject  of  dis- 
cussion, and  pass  from  France  to  Spain. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  it  was  an  insult  to  the  Spanish 
Government  to  ask  them,  as  we  did,  for  assurances  of  the  safety 
of  the  Royal  Family  of  Spain.  Have  I  not  already  accounted 
for  that  suggestion?  I  have  shown  that  one  of  the  causes  of  war, 
prospectively  agreed  upon  at  Verona,  was  any  act  of  personal 
violence  to  the  King  of  Spain  or  his  family.  I  endeavoured, 
therefore,  to  obtain  such  assurances  from  Spain  as  should  remove 
the  apprehension  of  any  such  outrage;  not  because  the  British 
Cabinet  thought  those  assurances  necessary,  but  because  it  might 
be  of  the  greatest  advantage  to  the  cause  of  Spain,  that  we  should 
be  able  to  proclaim  our  conviction,  that  upon  this  point  there  was 
nothing  to  apprehend;  that  we  should  thus  possess  the  means  of 
proving  to  France  that  she  had  no  cause,  arising  out  of  the  con- 
ference at  Verona,  to  justify  a  war.  Such  assurances  Spain  might 
have  refused — she  would  have  refused  them — to  France.  To  us 
she  might — she  did  give  them — without  lowering  her  dignity. 

And  here  I  cannot  help  referring,  with  some  pain,  to  a  speech 
delivered  by  an  honourable  and  learned  friend  of  mine  (Sir  J. 
Mackintosh)  last  night,  in  which  he  dwelt  upon  this  subject  in  a 
manner  totally  unlike  himself.  He  pronounced  a  high-flown 
eulogy  upon  M.  Arguelles;  he  envied  him,  he  said,  for  many 
things,  but  he  envied  him  most  for  the  magnanimity  which  he 
had  shown  in  sparing  his  Sovereign. 

[  Sir  J.  Mackintosh  said  that  he  had  only  used  the  word  "spar- 
ing," as  sparing  the  delicacy,  not  the  life  of  the  King.] 

I  am  glad  to  have  occasioned  this  explanation.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  must  have  intended  so  to 
express  himself,  for  I  am  sure  that  he  must  agree  with  me  in 


376  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

thinking  that  nothing  could  be  more  pernicious  than  to  familiarize 
the  world  with  the  contemplation  of  events  so  calamitous.  I  am 
sure  that  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  would  not  be  forward 
to  anticipate  for  the  people  of  Spain  an  outrage  so  alien  to  their 
character. 

Great  Britain  asked  these  assurances  then  without  offence;  for- 
asmuch as  she  asked  them — not  for  herself — not  because  she  enter- 
tained the  slightest  suspicion  of  the  supposed  danger,  but  because 
that  danger  constituted  one  of  those  hypothetical  cases  on  which 
alone  France  could  claim  eventual  support  from  the  allies;  and 
because  she  wished  to  be  able  to  satisfy  France  that  she  was  not 
likely  t6*have  such  a  justification. 

In  the  same  spirit,  and  with  the  like  purpose,  the  British  Cabi- 
net proposed  to  Spain  to  do  that,  without  which  not  only  the  dis- 
position but  perhaps  the  power  was  wanting  on  the  part  of  the 
French  Government,  to  recede  from  the  menacing  position  which 
it  had  somewhat  precipitately  occupied. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  point  on  which  the  longest  and 
fiercest  battle  has  been  fought  against  us — the  suggestion  to  Spain 
of  the  expediency  of  modifying  her  Constitution.     As  to  this 
point,  I  should  be  perfectly  contented,  Sir,  to  rest  the  justification 
of  Ministers  upon  the  argument  stated  the  night  before  last  by  a 
noble  young  friend  of  mine  (Lord  Francis  Leveson  Gower,)  in  a 
speech  which,  both  from  what  it  promised  and  what  it  performed, 
was  heard  with  delight  by  the  House.    "  If  Ministers,"  my  noble 
friend  observed,  "  had  refused  to  offer  such  suggestions,  and  if, 
being  called  to  account  for  that  refusal,  had  rested  their  defence 
on  the  ground  of  delicacy  to  Spain,  would  they  not  have  been 
taunted  with  something  like  these  observations?  'What!  had  you 
not  among  you  a  member  of   your  Government,  sitting  at  the 
same  council  board,  a  man  whom  you  ought  to  have  considered 
as  an  instrument  furnished  by  Providence,  at  once  to  give  efficacy 
to  your  advice,  and  to  spare  the  delicacy  of  the  Spanish  nation? 
Why  did  you  not  employ  the  Duke  of  Wellington  for  this  pur- 
pose?   Did  you  forget  the  services  which  he  had  rendered  to 
Spain,  or  did  you  imagine  that  Spain  had  forgotten  them  ?  Might 
not  any  advice,  however  unpalatable,  have  been  offered  by  such  a 
benefactor,  without  liability  to  offence  or  misconstruction  ?    Why 
did  you  neglect  so  happy  an  opportunity,  and  leave  unemployed 
so  fit  an  agent?    Oh!  blind  to  the  interests  of  the  Spanish  people 
— Oh!   insensible  to  the  feelings  of  human  nature!'" — Such  an 
argument  would  have  been  unanswerable;  and,  however  the  in- 
tervention of  Great  Britain  has  failed,  I  would  much  rather  have 
to  defend   myself  against  the  charge  of  having  tendered  advice 
officiously,  than  against  that  of  having  stupidly  neglected  to  em- 
ploy the  means  which  the  possession  of  such  a  man  as  the  Duke 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  377 

of  Wellington  put  into  the  hands  of  the  Government,  for  the 
salvation  of  a  nation  which  he  had  already  once  rescued  from 
destruction. 

With  respect  to  the  memorandum  of  the  noble  duke,  which 
has  been  so  much  the  subject  of  cavil — it  is  the  offspring  of  a 
manly  mind,  pouring  out  its  honest  opinions  with  an  earnestness 
characteristic  of  sincerity,  and  with  a  zeal  too  warm  to  stand  upon 
nice  and  scrupulous  expression.  I  am  sure  that  it  contains  nothing 
but  what  the  noble  duke  really  thought.  I  am  sure  that  what  he 
thought  at  the  time  of  writing  it,  he  would  still  maintain;  and 
what  he  thinks  and  maintains  regarding  Spain,  must,  I  should  im- 
agine, be  received  with  respect  and  confidence  by  all  wh(fcdo  not 
believe  themselves  to  be  better  qualified  to  judge  of  Spain  than 
he  is.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington's 
suggestions  here,  confident  I  am  that  there  is  not  an  individual  in 
Spain,  to  whom  this  paper  was  communicated,  who  took  it  as  an 
offence,  or  who  did  not  do  full  justice  to  the  motives  of  the  ad- 
viser, whatever  they  might  think  of  the  immediate  practicability 
of  his  advice.  Would  to  God  that  some  part  of  it,  at  least,  had 
been  accepted! — I  admit  the  point  of  honour — I  respect  those 
who  have  acted  upon  it — I  do  not  blame  the  Spaniards  that  they 
refused  to  make  any  sacrifice  to  temporary  necessity: — but  still — 
still  I  lament  the  result  of  that  refusal.  Of  this  I  am  quite  sure, 
that  even  if  the  Spaniards  were  justified  in  objecting  to  concede, 
it  would  have  been  a  most  romantic  point  of  honour  which 
should  have  induced  Great  Britain  to  abstain  from  recommending 
concession. 

It  is  said  that  every  thing  was  required  of  Spain,  and  nothing 
of  France.  I  utterly  deny  it.  I  have  already  described  the  rela- 
tive situation  of  the  two  countries.  I  will  repeat,  though  the 
term  has  been  so  much  criticised,  that  they  had  no  external  point 
of  difference.  France  said  to  Spain,  "  Your  revolution  disquiets 
me;"  and  Spain  replied  to  France,  "  Your  army  of  observation 
disquiets  me."  There  were  but  two  remedies  to  this  state  of 
things — war  or  concession;  and  why  was  England  fastidiously, 
and  (as  I  think)  most  mistakenly,  to  say,  "  Our  notions  of  non- 
interference are  so  strict  that  we  cannot  advise  you  even  for  your 
safety:  though  whatever  concession  you  may  make  may  probably 
be  met  by  corresponding  concession  on  the  part  of  France?" — 
Undoubtedly  the  withdrawing  of  the  army  of  observation  would 
have  been,  if  not  purely,  yet  in  a  great  degree,  an  internal  mea- 
sure on  the  part  of  France;  and  one  which,  though  I  will  not 
assert  it  to  be  precisely  equivalent  with  the  alteration  by  Spain 
of  any  fault  in  her  Constitution;  yet,  considering  its  immediate 
practical  advantage  to  Spain,  would  not,  I  think,  have  been  too 
dearly  purchased  by  such  an  alteration.  That  France  was  called 
50  HH* 


37S  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

upon  to  make  the  corresponding  concession,  appears  as  well  from 
the  memorandum  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  as  from  the  des- 
patches of  Sir  Charles  Stuart,  and  from  mine;  and  this  concession 
was  admitted  by  M.  San  Miguel  to  be  the  object  which  Spain 
most  desired.  England  saw  that  war  must  be  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  existing  state  of  things  between  the  two  king- 
doms: and,  if  something  were  yielded  on  the  one  side,  it  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  for  England  to  insist  upon  a  countervail- 
ing sacrifice  on  the  other. 

The  propriety  of  maintaining  the  army  of  observation  depend- 
ed wholly  upon  the  truth  of  the  allegations  on  which  France  jus- 
tified its  continuance.  I  do  not  at  all  mean  to  say  that  the  truth 
of  those  allegations  was  to  be  taken  for  granted.  But  what  I  do 
mean  to  say  is,  that  it  was  not  the  business  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  go  into  a  trial  and  examine  evidence,  to  ascertain  the  foun- 
dation of  the  conflicting  allegations  on  either  side.  It  was  clear 
that  nothing  but  some  modification  of  the  Spanish  Constitution 
could  avert  the  calamity  of  war;  and  in  applying  the  means  in 
our  hands  to  that  object  (an  object  interesting  not  to  Spain  only, 
but  to  England,  and  to  Europe)  it  was  not  our  business  to  take  up 
the  cause  of  either  party,  and  to  state  it  with  the  zeal  and  with 
the  aggravations  of  an  advocate;  but  rather  to  endeavour  to  reduce 
the  demands  of  each  within  such  limits  as  might  afford  a  reasona- 
ble hope  of  mutual  conciliation. 

Grant,  even,  that  the  justice  was  wholly  on  the  side  of  Spain; 
still,  in  entreating  the  Spanish  Ministers,  with  a  view  to  peace,  to 
abate  a  little  of  their  just  pretensions,  the  British  Government  did 
not  go  beyond  the  duty  which  the  law  of  nations  prescribes.  No, 
Sir,  it  was  our  duty  to  induce  Spain  to  relax  something  of  her 
positive  right,  for  a  purpose  so  essential  to  her  own  interests  and 
to  those  of  the  world.  Upon  this  point  let  me  fortify  myself 
once  more,  by  reference  to  the  acknowledged  law  of  nations. 
"  The  duty  of  a  mediator,"  says  Vattel,*  "  is  to  favour  well  found- 
ed claims,  and  to  effect  the  restoration  to  each  party  of  what  be- 
longs to  him;  but  he  ought  not  scrupulously  to  insist  on  rigid  jus- 
tice. He  is  a  conciliator,  not  a  judge:  his  business  is  to  procure 
peace;  and  he  ought  to  induce  him  who  has  right  on  his  side,  to 
relax  something  of  his  pretensions,  if  necessary,  with  a  view  to 
so  great  a  blessing." 

The  conduct  of  the  British  Government  is  thus  fortified  by  an 

*  "  Le  devoir  d'un  Mediateur  est  bien  de  favoriser  le  bon  droit,  de  faire  rendre 
a  cbacun  ce  qui  lui  appartient ;  mais  il  ne  doit  point  insister  scrupuleusement 
sur  une  justice  rigoureuse.  II  est  conciliateur,  et  not  pas  juge;  sa  vocation 
est  de  procurer  la  paix ;  et  il  doit  porter  celui  qui  a  le  droit  de  son  cbti,  a  re- 
lacher  quelque  chose  s'il  est  necessaire  dans  la  vue  d'un  si  grand  bien. — L.  II. 
c  18,  sec.  328. 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN.  379 

authority,  not  interested,  not  partial,  not  special  in  its  application, 
but  universal,  untinctured  by  favour,  uninfluenced  by  the  circum- 
stances of  any  particular  case,  and  applicable  to  the  general  con- 
cerns and  dealings  of  mankind.  Is  it  not  plain  then  that  we  have 
been  guilty  of  no  violation  of  duty  towards  the  weaker  party? 
Our  duty,  Sir,  was  discharged  not  only  without  any  unfriendly 
bias  against  Spain,  but  with  tenderness,  with  preference,  with  par- 
tiality in  her  favour;  and  while  I  respect  (as  I  have  already  said) 
the  honourable  obstinacy  of  the  Spanish  character,  so  deeply  am 
I  impressed  with  the  desirableness  of  peace  for  Spain,  that,  should 
the  opportunity  recur,  I  would  again,  without  scruple,  tender  the 
same  advice  to  her  Government.  The  point  of  honour  was  in 
truth  rather  individual  than  national;  but  the  safety  put  to  hazard 
was  assuredly  that  of  the  whole  nation.  Look  at  the  state  of 
Spain,  and  consider  whether  the  filling  up  a  blank  in  the  scheme 
of  her  representative  Constitution  with  an  amount  more  or  less 
high,  of  qualification  for  the  members  of  the  Cortes — whether  the 
promising  to  consider  hereafter  of  some  modifications  in  other 
questionable  points — was  too  much  to  be  conceded,  if  by  such  a 
sacrifice  peace  could  have  been  preserved!  If  we  had  declined  to 
interfere  on  such  grounds  of  punctilio,  would  not  the  very  passage 
which  I  have  now  read  from  Vattel,  as  our  vindication,  have  been 
brought  against  us  with  justice  as  a  charge  ? 

I  regret,  deeply  regret,  for  the  sake  of  Spain,  that  our  efforts 
failed.  I  must  fairly  add,  that  I  regret  it  for  the  sake  of  France 
also.  Convinced  as  I  may  be  of  the  injustice  of  the  course  pur- 
sued by  the  French  Government,  I  cannot  shut  my  eyes  to  its  im- 
policy. I  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  gallant  character  and  mighty 
resources  of  the  French  nation,  of  the  central  situation  of  France, 
and  of  the  weight  which  she  ought  to  preserve  in  the  scale  of  Eu- 
rope; I  cannot  be  insensible  to  the  dangers  to  which  she  is  ex- 
posing herself;  nor  omit  to  reflect  what  the  consequences  may  be 
to  that  country — what  the  consequences  to  Europe — of  the  hazard- 
ous enterprise  in  which  she  is  now  engaged;  and  which,  for  aught 
that  human  prudence  can  foresee,  may  end  in  a  dreadful  revulsion. 
As  mere  matter  of  abstract  right,  morality,  perhaps,  ought  to  be 
contented  when  injury  recoils  upon  an  aggressor.  But  such  a  re- 
vulsion as  I  am  speaking  of  would  not  affect  France  alone:  it 
would  touch  the  continental  states  at  many  points;  it  would  touch 
even  Great  Britain.  France  could  not  be  convulsed  without  com- 
municating danger  to  the  very  extremities  of  Europe.  With  this 
conviction,  I  confess  I  thought  any  sacrifice,  short  of  national  hon- 
our or  national  independence,  cheap,  to  prevent  the  first  breach  in 
that  pacific  settlement,  by  which  the  miseries  and  agitations  of  the 
world  have  been  so  recently  composed. 

I  apologize,  Sir,  for  the  length  of  time  which  I  have  consumed 


380  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN. 

upon  these  points.  The  case  is  complicated:  the  transactions  have 
been  much  misunderstood,  and  the  opinions  regarding  them  are 
various  and  discordant.  The  true  understanding  of  the  case,  how- 
ever, and  the  vindication  of  the  conduct  of  Government,  would 
be  matters  of  comparatively  light  importance,  if  censure  or  ap- 
probation for  the  past  were  the  only  result  in  contemplation.  But, 
considering  that  we  are  now  only  at  the  threshold,  as  it  were,  of 
the  war,  and  that  great  events  are  pending,  in  which  England  may 
hereafter  be  called  upon  to  take  her  part,  it  is  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance that  no  doubt  should  rest  upon  the  conduct  and  policy  of 
this  country. 

One  thing  more  there  is,  which  I  must  not  forget  to  notice  with 
regard  to  the  advice  given  to  Spain.  I  have  already  mentioned 
the  Duke  of  Wellington  as  the  chosen  instrument  of  that  counsel: 
a  Spaniard  by  adoption,  by  title,  and  by  property,  he  had  a  right 
to  offer  the  suggestions  which  he  thought  fit,  to  the  Government 
of  the  country  which  had  adopted  him.  But  it  has  been  com- 
plained, that  the  British  Government  would  have  induced  the 
Spaniards  to  break  an  oath:  that,  according  to  the  oath  taken  by 
the  Cortes,  the  Spanish  institutions  could  be  revised  only  at  the 
expiration  of  eight  years;  and  that,  by  calling  upon  the  Cortes  to 
revise  them  before  that  period  was  expired,  we  urged  them  to  in- 
cur the  guilt  of  perjury.  Sir,  this  supposed  restriction  is  assumed 
gratuitously. 

There  are  two  opinions  upon  it  in  Spain.  One  party  calculates 
the  eight  years  from  the  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the  first  es- 
tablishment of  the  Constitution;  the  other  reckons  only  the  time 
during  which  it  has  been  in  operation.  The  latter  insist  that  the 
period  has  yet  at  least  two  years  to  run,  because  the  Constitution 
has  been  in  force  only  from  1812  to  1814,  and  from  1820  to  the 
present  time:  those  who  calculate  from  the  original  establishment 
of  it  in  1812,  argue  of  course  that  more  than  the  eight  years  are 
already  expired,  and  that  the  period  of  revision  is  fully  come.  I 
do  not  pretend  to  decide  between  these  two  constructions;  but  I 
assert  that  they  are  both  Spanish  constructions.  A  Spaniard  of  no 
mean  name  and  reputation — one  eminently  friendly  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  1812 — by  whose  advice  Ministers  were  in  this  respect 
guided,  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  not  only  consistently  with  their 
oath,  but  in  exact  fulfilment  of  it,  the  Spainiards  might  now  recon- 
sider and  modify  their  Constitution — that  they  might  have  done  so 
nearly  three  years  ago.  "  Shall  I  lay  perjury  upon  my  soul  ?"  say 
the  Cortes.  The  answer  is,  "  No;  we  do  not  ask  you  to  lay  per- 
jury upon  your  souls;  for  as  good  a  Spanish  soul  as  is  possessed 
by  any  of  you  declares,  that  you  may  now,  in  due  conformity  to 
your  oaths,  reconsider,  and,  where  advisable,  reform  your  Consti- 
tution."    Do  we  not  know  what  constructions  have  been  put  in 


NEGOTIATIONS   RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  3'81 

this  country,  on  the  coronation  oath,  as  to  its  operation  on  what 
is  called  the  Catholic  Question?  Will  any  man  say  that  it  has 
been  my  intention,  or  the  intention  of  my  honourable  friend,  the 
member  for  Bramber,  every  time  that  we  have  supported  a  mo- 
tion for  communicating  to  our  Roman  Catholic  fellow  subjects  the 
full  benefit  of  the  Constitution,  to  lay  perjury  on  the  soul  of  the 
sovereign  ? 

Sir,  I  do  not  pretend  to  decide  whether  the  number  of  legisla- 
tive chambers  in  Spain  should  be  one,  or  two,  or  three.  In  God's 
name,  let  them  try  what  experiment  in  political  science  they  will, 
provided  we  are  not  affected  by  the  trial.  All  that  Great  Britain 
has  done  on  this  occasion  has  been,  not  to  disturb  the  course  of 
political  experiment,  but  to  endeavour  to  avert  the  calamity  of 
war.  Good  God!  when  it  is  remembered  how  many  evils  are 
compressed  into  that  little  word  "  war," — is  it  possible  for  any 
man  to  hesitate  in  urging  every  expedient  that  could  avert  it, 
without  sacrificing  the  honour  of  the  party  to  which  his  advice 
was  tendered  ?  Most  earnestly  do  I  wish  that  the  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington had  succeeded:  but  great  is  the  consolation  that,  according 
to  the  best  accounts  from  Spain,  his  counsels  have  not  been  mis- 
understood there,  however  they  have  been  misrepresented  here. 
I  believe  that  I  might  with  truth  go  further,  and  say,  that  there 
are  those  in  Spain  who  now  repent  the  rigid  course  pursued,  and 
who  are  beginning  to  ask  each  other — why  they  held  out  so  per- 
tinaciously against  suggestions  at  once  so  harmless  and  so  reason- 
able? My  wish  was,  that  Spain  should  be  saved;  that  she  should 
be  saved  before  the  extremity  of  evil  had  come  upon  her,  even 
by  the  making  of  those  concessions,  which,  in  the  heat  of  national 
pride,  she  refused.  Under  any  circumstances,  however,  I  have 
still  another  consolation — the  consolation  of  knowing,  that  never, 
from  the  commencement  of  these  negotiations,  has  Spain  been 
allowed  by  the  British  Government  to  lie  under  the  delusion  that 
her  refusal  of  all  modifications  would  induce  England  to  join  her 
in  the  war.  The  very  earliest  communication  made  to  Spain  for- 
bade her  to  entertain  any  such  reliance.  She  was  told  at  the  be- 
ginning, as  she  was  told  in  the  end,  that  neutrality  was  our  deter- 
mined policy.  From  the  first  to  the  last,  there  was  never  the 
slightest  variation  in  this  language — never  a  pause  during  which 
she  could  be  for  one  moment  in  doubt  as  to  the  settled  purpose 
of  England. 

France,  on  the  contrary,  was  never  assured  of  the  neutrality 
of  England,  till  my  despatch  of  the  31st  of  March  (the  last  of  the 
first  series  of  printed  papers,)  was  communicated  to  the  French 
Ministry  at  Paris.  The  speech  of  the  King  of  France,  on  the 
opening  of  the  Chambers  (I  have  no  difficulty  in  saying,)  excited 
not  only  strong  feelings  of  disapprobation,  by  the  principles  which 


382  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

it  avowed,  but  serious  apprehensions  for  the  future,  from  the  de- 
signs which  it  appeared  to  disclose.  I  have  no  difficulty  in  saying 
that  the  speech  delivered  from  the  British  throne  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  present  session,  did,  as  originally  drawn,  con- 
tain an  avowal  of  our  intention  to  preserve  neutrality;  but,  upon 
the  arrival  of  the  King  of  France's  speech,  the  paragraph  contain- 
ing that  avowal  was  withdrawn.  Nay,  I  have  no  difficulty  in 
adding,  that  I  plainly  told  the  French  Charge  d'Affaires,  that  such 
an  intimation  had  been  intended,  but  that  it  was  withdrawn,  in 
consequence  of  the  speech  of  the  King,  his  master.  Was  this 
truckling  to  France? 

It  was  not,  however,  on  account  of  Spain  that  the  pledge  of 
neutrality  was  withdrawn:  it  was  withdrawn  upon  principles  of 
general  policy  on  the  part  of  this  country.  It  was  withdrawn, 
because  there  was  that  in  the  King  of  France's  speech,  which  ap- 
peared to  carry  the  two  countries  (France  and  England)  back  to 
their  position  in  older  times,  when  France,  as  regarded  the  affairs 
of  Spain,  had  been  the  successful  rival  of  England.  Under  such 
circumstances,  it  behoved  the  English  Ministers  to  be  upon  their 
guard.  We  were  upon  our  guard.  Could  we  prove  our  caution 
more  than  by  withholding  that  assurance,  which  would  at  once 
have  set  France  at  ease  ?  We  did  withhold  that  assurance.  But 
it  was  one  thing  to  withhold  the  declaration  of  neutrality,  and 
another  to  vary  the  purpose. 

Spain,  then,  I  repeat,  has  never  been  misled  by  the  British 
Government.  But  I  fear,  nevertheless,  that  a  notion  was  in  some 
way  or  other  created  at  Madrid,  that  if  Spain  would  but  hold  out 
resolutely,  the  Government  of  England  would  be  forced,  by  the 
popular  voice  in  this  country,  to  take  part  in  her  favour.  I  infer 
no  blame  against  any  one;  but  I  do  firmly  believe  that  such  a  no- 
tion was  propagated  in  Spain,  and  that  it  had  great  share  in  pro- 
ducing the  peremptory  refusal  of  any  modification  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  1S12.  Regretting,  as  I  do,  the  failure  of  our  endeav- 
ours to  adjust  those  disputes,  which  now  threaten  so  much  evil 
to  the  world,  I  am  free  at  least  from  the  self-reproach  of  having 
contributed  to  that  delusion  in  the  mind  of  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment or  nation,  as  to  the  eventual  decision  of  England,  which,  if 
it  existed  in  such  a  degree  as  to  produce  reliance  upon  our  co- 
operation, must  have  added  to  the  other  calamities  of  her  present 
situation,  the  bitterness  of  disappointment.  This  disappointment, 
Sir,  was  from  the  beginning,  certain,  inevitable:  for  the  mistake 
of  those  who  excited  the  hopes  of  Spain  was  not  only  as  to  the 
conduct  of  the  British  Government,  but  as  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  British  nation.  No  man,  whatever  his  personal  opinion  or 
feeling  may  be,  will  pretend  that  the  opinion  of  the  country  is 
not  decidedly  against  war.     No  man  will  deny  that,  if  Ministers 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  383 

had  plunged  the  country  into  a  war  for  the  sake  of  Spain,  they 
would  have  come  before  Parliament  with  a  heavier  weight  of 
responsibility  than  had  ever  lain  upon  the  shoulders  of  any  Gov- 
ernment. I  impute  not  to  those  who  may  thus  have  misled  the 
Spanish  Ministry,  the  intention  either  of  thwarting  (though  such 
was  the  effect)  the  policy  of  their  own  Government,  or  of  aggra- 
vating (though  such  must  be  the  consequence)  the  difficulties  of 
Spain.  But  for  myself  I  declare,  that  even  the  responsibility  of 
plunging  this  country  into  an  unnecessary  war,  would  have 
weighed  less  heavily  upon  my  conscience,  than  that,  which  I 
thank  God  I  have  not  incurred,  of  instigating  Spain  to  the  war, 
by  exciting  hopes  of  assistance  which  I  had  not  the  means  of 
realizing. 

I  have  thus  far,  Sir,  taken  the  liberty  of  assuming  that  the  late 
negotiations  were  properly  directed  to  the  preservation  of  peace; 
and  have  argued  the  merits  of  the  negotiations,  on  that  assump- 
tion. I  am  aware  that  it  is  still  to  be  established,  that  peace,  un- 
der all  the  circumstances  of  the  times,  ivas  the  proper  course  for 
this  country.    I  address  myself  now  to  that  branch  of  the  subject. 

I  believe  I  may  venture  to  take  it  as  universally  admitted, 
that  any  question  of  war  involves  not  only  a  question  of  right, 
not  only  a  question  of  justice,  but  also  a  question  of  expediency. 
I  take  it  to  be  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  before  any  government 
determines  to  go  to  war,  it  ought  to  be  convinced  not  only  that 
it  has  just  cause  of  war,  but  that  there  is  something  which  renders 
war  its  duty:  a  duty  compounded  of  two  considerations — the 
first,  what  the  country  may  owe  to  others;  the  second,  what  she 
owes  to  herself.  I  do  not  know  whether  any  gentleman  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House,  has  thought  it  worth  while  to  examine 
and  weigh  these  considerations;  but  Ministers  had  to  weigh  them 
well  before  they  took  their  resolution.  Ministers  did  weigh  them 
well;  wisely  I  hope;  I  am  sure  conscientiously  and  deliberately: 
and,  if  they  came  to  the  decision  that  peace  was  the  policy 
prescribed  to  them,  that  decision  was  founded  on  a  reference, 
first,  to  the  situation  of  Spain;  secondly,  to  the  situation  of 
France;  thirdly,  to  the  situation  of  Portugal;  fourthly,  to  the 
situation  of  the  Alliance;  fifthly,  to  the  peculiar  situation  of 
England;  and  lastly,  to  the  general  state  of  the  world.  And  first, 
Sir,  as  to  Spain. 

The  only  gentleman,  by  whom  (as  it  seems  to  me)  this  part  of 
the  question  has  been  fairly  and  boldly  met,  is  the  honourable 
member  for  Westminster  (Air.  Hobhouse;)  who,  in  his  speech 
of  yesterday  evening — (a  speech  which,  however  extravagant,  as 
I  may  perhaps  think,  in  its  tone,  was  perfectly  intelligible  and 
straight-forward,)  not  only  declared  himself  openly  for  war,  but, 
aware  that  one  of  the  chief  sinews  of  war  is  money,  did  no  less 


3S4  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

than  offer  a  subsidy  to  assist  in  carrying  it  on.  He  declared  that 
his  constituents  were  ready  to  contribute  all  their  means  to  in- 
vigorate the  hands  of  Government  in  the  war;  but  he  annexed, 
to  be  sure,  the  trifling  condition,  that  the  war  was  to  be  a  war  of 
people  against  kings.  Now  this,  which,  it  must  be  owned,  was 
no  unimportant  qualification  of  the  honourable  member's  offer  of 
assistance,  is  also  one  to  which,  I  confess,  I  am  not  quite  pre- 
pared to  accede.  I  do  not  immediately  remember  any  case  in 
which  such  a  principle  of  war  has  been  professed  by  any  govern- 
ment, except  in  the  decree  of  the  National  Convention  of  the 
year  1793,  which  laid  the  foundation  of  the  war  between  this 
country  and  France — the  decree  which  offered  assistance  to  all 
nations  who  would  shake  off  the  tyranny  of  their  rulers. 

Even  the  honourable  member  for  Westminster,  therefore,  is 
after  all  but  conditionally  in  favour  of  war:  and,  even  in  that 
conditional  pledge  he  has  been  supported  by  so  few  members  that 
I  cannot  help  suspecting  that  if  I  were  to  proceed  on  the  faith  of 
his  encouragement,  I  should  find  myself  left  with  the  honourable 
gentleman,  pretty  nearly  in  the  situation  of  King  James  with  his 
bishops.  King  James,  we  all  remember,  asked  Bishop  Neale  if 
he  might  not  take  his  subjects'  money  without  the  authority  of 
Parliament?  To  which  Bishop  Neale  replied,  "  God  forbid,  Sire, 
but  you  should;  you  are  the  breath  of  our  nostrils."  The  King 
then  turned  to  Bishop  Andrews,  and  repeated  the  same  question; 
when  Bishop  Andrews  answered,  "  Sire,  I  think  it  is  lawful  for 
your  Majesty  to  take  my  brother  Neale's  money,  for  he  offers  it." 
Now,  if  I  were  to  appeal  to  the  House,  on  the  hint  of  the  hon- 
ourable gentleman,  I  should,  indeed,  on  his  own  terms,  have  an 
undoubted  right  to  the  money  of  the  honourable  gentleman;  but 
if  the  question  were  put,  for  instance,  to  the  honourable  member 
for  Surrey  (Mr.  Holme  Sumner,)  his  answer  would  probably  be, 
"  You  may  take  my  brother  of  Westminster's  money,  as  he  says 
his  constituents  have  authorized  him  to  offer  it;  but  my  constitu- 
ents have  certainly  given  me  no  such  authority." 

But  however  single,  or  however  conditional,  the  voice  of  the 
honourable  member  for  Westminster  is  still  for  war;  and  he  does 
me  the  honour  to  tempt  me  to  take  the  same  course,  by  remind- 
ing me  of  a  passage  in  my  political  life  to  which  I  shall  ever  look 
back  with  pride  and  satisfaction.  I  allude  to  that  period  when 
the  bold  spirit  of  Spain  burst  forth  indignant  against  the  oppression 
of  Buonaparte.  Then  unworthily  filling  the  same  office  which  I 
have  the  honour  to  hold  at  the  present  moment,  I  discharged  the 
glorious  duty  (if  a  portion  of  glory  may  attach  to  the  humble  in- 
strument of  a  glorious  cause)  of  recognizing  without  delay  the 
rights  of  the  Spanish  nation,  and  of  at  once  adopting  that  gallant 
people  into  the  closest  amity  with  England.  It  was  indeed  a  stirring, 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  385 

a  kindling  occasion:  and  no  man  who  has  a  heart  in  his  bosom, 
can  think  even  now  of  the  noble  enthusiasm,  the  animated  exer- 
tions, the  undaunted  courage,  the  unconquerable  perseverance  of 
the  Spanish  nation,  in  a  cause  apparently  so  desperate,  finally  so 
triumphant, — without  feeling  his  blood  glow  and  his  pulses  quick- 
en with  tumultous  throbs  of  admiration.  But  I  must  remind  the 
honourable  gentleman  of  three  circumstances,  calculated  to  qualify 
a  little  the  feelings  of  enthusiasm,  and  to  suggest  lessons  of  cau- 
tion; I  must  remind  him  first  of  the  state  of  this  country, — sec- 
ondly, of  that  of  Spain — at  that  period,  as  compared  with  the 
present: — and  thirdly,  of  the  manner  in  which  the  enterprise  in 
behalf  of  Spain  was  viewed  by  certain  parties  in  this  country. 
We  are  now  at  peace.  In  1808,  we  were  already  at  war — we 
were  at  war  with  Buonaparte,  the  invader  of  Spain.  In  1S08,  we 
were,  as  now,  the  allies  of  Portugal,  bound  by  treaty  to  defend 
her  from  aggression;  but  Portugal  was  at  that  time  not  only  men- 
aced by  the  power  of  France,  but  overrun  by  it;  her  Royal  Fam- 
ily was  actually  driven  into  exile,  and  their  kingdom  occupied  by 
the  French.  Bound  by  treaty  to  protect  Portugal,  how  natural 
was  it,  under  such  circumstances,  to  extend  our  assistance  to 
Spain! — Again.  Spain  was  at  that  time,  comparatively  speaking, 
a  united  nation.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  were  no  dif- 
ferences of  opinion;  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  some  few  among 
the  higher  classes  had  been  corrupted  by  the  gold  of  France:  but 
still  the  great  bulk  of  the  people  were  united  in  one  cause;  their 
loyalty  to  their  Sovereign  had  survived  his  abdication;  and  though 
absent  and  a  prisoner,  the  name  of  Ferdinand  VII.  was  the  rally- 
ing point  of  the  nation.  But  let  the  House  look  at  the  situation 
in  which  England  would  be  placed,  should  she,  at  the  present  mo- 
ment, march  her  armies  to  the  aid  of  Spain.  As  against  France 
alone,  her  task  might  not  be  more  difficult  than  before;  but  is  it 
only  with  France  that  she  would  now  have  to  contend?  England 
could  not  strike  in  the  cause  of  Spain  against  the  invading  foe 
alone.  Fighting  in  Spanish  ranks,  should  we  not  have  to  point 
our  bayonets  against  Spanish  bosoms?  But  this  is  not  the  whole 
of  the  difference  between  the  present  moment,  and  the  year  1808. 
In  1808,  we  had  a  large  army  prepared  for  foreign  service;  a 
whole  war  establishment  ready  appointed;  and  the  simple  ques- 
tion was,  in  what  quarter  we  could  best  apply  its  force  against  the 
common  enemy  of  England,  of  Spain,  of  Portugal, — of  Europe. 
This  country  had  no  hopes  of  peace:  our  abstinence  from  tbe 
Spanish  war  could  in  no  way  have  accelerated  the  return  of  that 
blessing;  and  the  Peninsula  presented,  plainly  and  obviously,  the 
theatre  of  exertion  in  which  we  could  contend  with  most  advan- 
♦age.  Compare,  then,  I  say,  that  period  with  the  present;  in  which 
51  ii 


386  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

none  of  the  inducements,  or  incitements,  which  I  have  described 
as  belonging  to  the  opportunity  of  1808,  can  be  found. 

But  is  the  absence  of  inducement  and  incitement  all  ?  Is  there 
no  positive  discouragement  in  the  recollections  of  that  time,  to 
check  too  hasty  a  concurrence  in  the  warlike  views  of  the  hon- 
ourable member  for  Westminster?  When  England,  in  1808,  un- 
der all  the  circumstances  which  I  have  enumerated,  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  throw  upon  the  banks  of  the  Tagus,  and  to  plunge  into  all 
the  difficulties  of  the  Peninsula  war,  an  army  destined  to  emerge 
in  triumph  through  the  Pyrenees, — was  that  course  hailed  with 
sympathy  and  exultation  by  all  parties  in  the  state?  Were  there 
no  warnings  against  danger?  no  chastisements  for  extravagance? 
no  doubts — no  complaints — no  charges  of  rashness  and  impolicy  ? 
I  have  heard  of  persons,  Sir, — persons  of  high  authority,  too — 
who,  in  the  very  midst  of  the  general  exaltation  of  spirit  through- 
out this  country,  declared  that,  "  in  order  to  warrant  England  in 
embarking  in  a  military  co-operation  with  Spain,  something  more 
was  necessary  to  show  that  the  Spanish  cause  was  just."  "  It 
was  not  enough,"  said  these  enlightened  monitors,  "  it  was  not 
enough  that  the  attack  of  France  upon  the  Spanish  nation  was 
unprincipled,  perfidious,  and  cruel — that  the  resistance  of  Spain 
was  dictated  by  every  principle,  and  sanctioned  by  every  motive, 
honourable  to  human  nature — that  it  made  every  English  heart 
burn  with  a  holy  zeal  to  lend  its  assistance  against  the  oppressor: 
there  were  other  considerations  of  a  less  brilliant  and  enthusiastic, 
but  not  less  necessary  and  commanding  nature,  which  should  have 
preceded  the  determination  of  putting  to  hazard  the  most  valuable 
interests  of  the  country.  It  is  not  with  nations  as  with  individu- 
als. Those  heroic  virtues  which  shed  a  lustre  upon  individual 
man,  must,  in  their  application  to  the  conduct  of  nations,  be  chast- 
ened by  reflections  of  a  more  cautious  and  calculating  cast.  That 
generous  magnanimity  and  high-minded  disinterestedness,  proud 
distinctions  of  national  virtue  (and  happy  were  the  people  whom 
they  characterize,)  which,  when  exercised  at  the  risk  of  every 
personal  interest,  in  the  prospect  of  every  danger,  and  at  the  sac- 
rifice even  of  life  itself,  justly  immortalize  the  hero,  cannot  and 
ought  not  to  be  considered  justifiable  motives  of  political  action, 
because  nations  cannot  afford  to  be  chivalrous  and  romantic." 
History  is  philosophy  teaching  by  example;  and  the  words  of  the 
wise  are  treasured  for  ages  that  are  to  come. 

"  The  age  of  chivalry,"  said  Mr.  Burke,  "  is  gone;  and  an  age 
of  economists  and  calculators  has  succeeded."  That  an  age  of 
economists  and  calculators  is  come,  we  have  indeed  every  night's 
experience.  But  what  would  be  the  surprise,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  gratification,  of  the  mighty  spirit  of  Burke,  at  finding 
his  splendid  lamentation  so  happily  disproved! — at  seeing  that 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  387 

chivalrous  spirit,  the  total  extinction  of  which  he  deplored,  revive, 
qua  minime  reris,  on  the  very  benches  of  the  economists  and 
calculators  themselves!  But,  in  truth,  Sir,  it  revives  at  a  most  in- 
convenient opportunity.  It  would  be  as  ill-advised  to  follow  a 
chivalrous  impulse  now,  as  it  would  in  1808  have  been  inexcusa- 
ble to  disobey  it.  Under  the  circumstances  of  1808, 1  would  again 
act  as  I  then  acted.  But  though  inapplicable  to  the  period  to 
which  it  was  applied,  I  confess  I  think  the  caution  which  I  have 
just  quoted  does  apply,  with  considerable  force,  to  the  present 
moment. 

Having  shown,  then,  that  in  reference  to  the  state  of  Spain, 
war  was  not  the  course  prescribed  by  any  rational  policy  to  Eng- 
land, let  us  next  try  the  question  in  reference  to  France. 

I  do  not  stop  here  to  refute  and  disclaim  again  the  unworthy 
notion,  which  was  early  put  forward,  but  has  been  since  silently 
retracted  and  disowned,  that  it  might  have  been  advisable  to  try 
the  chance  of  what  might  be  effected  by  a  menace  of  war,  unsup- 
ported by  any  serious  design  of  carrying  that  menace  into  execu- 
tion. Those  by  whom  this  manoeuvre  was  originally  supposed 
to  be  recommended  are,  I  understand,  anxious  to  clear  themselves 
from  the  suspicion  of  having  intended  to  countenance  it,  and  pro- 
fess indeed  to  wonder  by  whom  such  an  idea  can  have  been  en- 
tertained. Be  it  so:  I  will  not  press  the  point  invidiously — it  is 
not  necessary  for  my  argument.  I  have  a  right  then  to  take  it  as 
admitted,  that  we  could  not  have  threatened  war,  without  being 
thoroughly  prepared  for  it;  and  that,  in  determining  to  threaten, 
we  must  virtually  have  determined  (whatever  the  chances  of 
escaping  that  ultimate  result,)  to  go  to  war — that  the  determina- 
tions were  in  fact  identical. 

Neither  will  I  discuss  over  again  that  other  proposition,  already 
sufficiently  exhausted  in  former  debates,  of  the  applicability  of  a 
purely  maritime  war  to  a  struggle  in  aid  of  Spain,  in  the  cam- 
paign by  which  her  fate  is  to  be  decided.  I  will  not  pause  to 
consider  what  consolation  it  would  have  been  to  the  Spanish  na- 
tion— what  source  of  animation,  and  what  encouragement  to  per- 
severance in  resisting  their  invader — to  learn,  that  though  we 
could  not,  as  in  the  last  war,  march  to  their  aid,  and  mingle  our 
banners  with  theirs  in  battle,  we  were,  nevertheless,  scouring 
their  coasts  for  prizes,  and  securing  to  ourselves  an  indemnifica- 
tion for  our  own  expenses  in  the  capture  of  Martinico. 

To  go  to  war  therefore  directly,  unsparingly,  vigorously  against 
France,  in  behalf  of  Spain,  in  the  way  in  which  alone  Spain 
could  derive  any  essential  benefit  from  our  co-operation — to  join 
her  with  heart  and  hand — or  to  wrap  ourselves  up  in  a  real  and 
bona  fide  neutrality — that  was  the  true  alternative. 

Some   gentlemen  have  blamed   me   for  a  want  of  enthusiasm 


HH* 


388  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

upon  this  occasion — some  too,  who  formerly  blamed  me  for  an 
excess  of  that  quality;  but  though  I  am  charged  with  not  being 
now  sufficiently  enthusiastic,  I  assure  them  that  I  do  not  contem- 
plate the  present  contest  with  indifference.  Far  otherwise.  I  con- 
template, I  confess,  with  fearful  anxiety,  the  peculiar  character  of 
the  war  in  which  France  and  Spain  are  engaged,  and  the  peculiar 
direction  which  that  character  may  possibly  give  to  it.  I  was — I 
still  am — an  enthusiast  for  national  independence;  but  I  am  not — 
I  hope  I  never  shall  be — an  enthusiast  in  favour  of  revolution. 
And  yet  how  fearfully  are  those  two  considerations  intermingled, 
in  the  present  contest  between  France  and  Spain!  This  is  no  war 
for  territory,  or  for  commercial  advantages.  It  is  unhappily  a 
war  of  principle.  France  has  invaded  Spain  from  enmity  to  her 
new  institutions.  Supposing  the  enterprise  of  France  not  to  suc- 
ceed, what  is  there  to  prevent  Spain  from  invading  France,  in 
return,  from  hatred  of  the  principle  upon  which  her  invasion  has 
been  justified?  Looking  upon  both  sides  with  an  impartial  eye, 
I  may  avow  that  I  know  no  equity  which  should  bar  the  Span- 
iards from  taking  such  a  revenge.  But  it  becomes  quite  another 
question  whether  I  should  choose  to  place  myself  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  actively  contributing  to  successes,  which  might  inflict 
on  France  so  terrible  a  retribution.  If  I  admit  that  such  a  retri- 
bution by  the  party  first  attacked  could  scarcely  be  censured  as 
unjust,  still  the  punishment  retorted  upon  the  aggressor  would  be 
so  dreadful,  that  nothing  short  of  having  received  direct  injury 
could  justify  any  third  power  in  taking  part  in  it. 

War  between  France  and  Spain  (as  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
has  said)  must  always,  to  a  certain  degree,  partake  of  the  charac- 
ter of  a  civil  war;  a  character  which  palliates,  if  it  does  not  jus- 
tify, many  acts  that  do  not  belong  to  a  regular  contest  between 
two  nations.  But  why  should  England  voluntarily  enter  into  a 
co-operation  in  which  she  must  either  take  part  in  such  acts,  or 
be  constantly  rebuking  and  coercing  her  allies?  If  we  were  at 
war  with  France  upon  any  question  such  as  I  must  again  take  the 
liberty  of  describing  by  the  term  "external"  question,  we  should 
not  think  ourselves — (I  trust  no  government  of  this  country 
would  think  itself) — justified  in  employing  against  France  the 
arms  of  internal  revolution.  But  what,  I  again  ask,  is  there  to 
restrain  Spain  from  such  means  of  defensive  retaliation,  in  a 
struggle  begun  by  France  avowedly  from  enmity  to  the  internal 
institutions  of  Spain?  And  is  it  in  such  a  quarrel  that  we  would 
mix  ourselves?  If  one  of  two  contending  parties  poisons  the 
well-springs  of  national  liberty,  and  the  other  employs  against  its 
adversary  the  venomed  weapons  of  political  fanaticism,  shall  we 
voluntarily  and  unnecessarily  associate  ourselves  with  either,  and 
become  responsible  for  the  infliction  upon  either  of  such  unusual 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN.  ^89 

calamities?  While  I  reject,  therefore,  with  disdain  a  suggestion 
which  I  have  somewhere  heard,  of  the  possibility  of  our  engaging 
against  the  Spanish  cause,  still  I  do  not  feel  myself  called  upon  to 
join  with  Spain  in  hostilities  of  such  peculiar  character  as  those 
which  she  may  possibly  retaliate  upon  France.  Not  being  bound 
to  do  so  by  any  obligation,  expressed  or  implied,  I  cannot  consent 
to  be  a  party  to  a  war  in  which,  if  Spain  should  chance  to  be  suc- 
cessful, the  result  to  France,  and,  through  France,  to  all  Europe, 
might,  in  the  case  supposed,  be  such  as  no  thinking  man  can  con- 
template without  dismay;  and  such  as  I  (for  my  own  part)  would 
not  assist  in  producing,  for  all  the  advantages  which  England 
could  reap  from  the  most  successful  warfare. 

I  now  come  to  the  third  consideration  which  we  had  to  weigh 
— the  situation  of  Portugal.  It  is  perfectly  true,  as  was  stated  by 
the  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Macdonald)  who  opened  this  de- 
bate, that  we  are  bound  by  treaty  to  assist  Portugal  in  case  of  her 
being  attacked.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  this  is  an  ancient  and 
reciprocal  obligation.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  Portugal  has  often 
been  in  jeopardy;  and  equally  true  that  England  has  never  failed 
to  fly  to  her  assistance.  But  much  misconception  has  been  ex- 
hibited during  the  last  two  nights,  with  respect  to  the  real  na- 
ture of  the  engagements  between  Portugal  and  this  country;  a 
misconception  which  has  undoubtedly  been,  in  part,  created  by 
the  publication  of  some  detached  portions  of  diplomatic  corres- 
pondence, at  Lisbon.  The  truth  is,  that  some  time  ago  an  appli- 
cation was  made  to  this  Government  by  Portugal  to  "  guarantee 
the  new  political  institutions  "  of  that  kingdom.  I  do  not  know 
that  it  has  been  the  practice  of  this  country  to  guarantee  the  po- 
litical institutions  of  another.  Perhaps  something  of  the  sort 
may  be  found  in  the  history  of  our  connexion  with  the  united 
provinces  of  Holland,  in  virtue  of  which  we  interfered,  in  17S6, 
in  the  internal  disputes  of  the  authorities  in  that  state.  But  that 
case  was  a  special  exception:  the  general  rule  is  undoubtedly  the 
other  way.  I  declined  therefore,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  to 
accede  to  this  strange  application;  and  I  endeavoured  to  reconcile 
the  Portuguese  Government  to  our  refusal,  by  showing  that  the 
demand  was  one  which  went  directly  to  the  infraction  of  that 
principle  of  non-interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of  other  states, 
which  we  professed  for  ourselves,  and  which  it  was  obviously  the 
interest  of  Portugal  to  see  respected  and  maintained.  Our  obliga- 
tions had  been  contracted  with  the  old  Portuguese  monarchy. 
Our  treaty  bound  us  to  consult  the  external  safety  of  Portugal;  and 
not  to  examine,  to  challenge,  or  to  champion  its  internal  institu- 
tions. If  we  examined  their  new  institutions  for  the  sake  of  deriving 
from  them  new  motives  for  fulfilling  our  old  engagements,  with 
what  propriety  could  we  prohibit  other  powers  from  examining 

ii* 


390 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 


u 


them  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  any  other  conclusion  ?  It  was 
enough  to  say,  that  such  internal  changes  no  way  affected  our  en- 
gagements with  Portugal;  that  we  felt  ourselves  as  much  bound 
to  defend  her,  under  her  altered  constitution,  as  under  the  ancient 
monarchy,  with  which  our  alliance  had  been  contracted.  More 
than  this  we  could  not  say;  and  more  than  this  it  was  not  her  in- 
terest to  require. 

And  what  is  the  obligation  of  this  alliance? — To  defend  Por- 
tugal— to  assist  her,  if  necessary,  with  all  our  forces,  in  case  of  an 
unprovoked  attack  upon  her  territory.     This,  however,  does  not 
give  to  Portugal  any  right  to  call  on  us,  if  she  were  attacked  in 
consequence  of  her  voluntarily  declaring  war  against  another  Pow- 
er.    By  engaging  in  the  cause  of  Spain,  without  any  direct  provo- 
cation from  France,  she  would  unquestionably  lose  all  claim  upon 
our  assistance.    The  rendering  that  assistance  would  then  become 
a  question  of  policy,  not  of  duty.    Surely  my  honourable  and  learn- 
ed friend  (Sir  James  Mackintosh,)  who  has  declaimed  so  loudly 
on  this  subject,  knows  as  well  as  any  man,  that  the  course  which 
we  are  bound  to  follow  in  any  case  affecting  Portugal,  is  marked 
out  in  our  treaties  with  that  crown,  with  singular  accuracy  and 
circumspection.     In  case  of  the  suspicion  of  any  design  being 
entertained  against  Portugal  by  another  Power,  our  first  duty  is 
to  call  on  such  Power  for  explanation:  in  case  of  such  interposi- 
tion failing,  we  are  to  support  Portugal  by  arms;  first  with  a  lim- 
ited force,  and  afterwards  with  all  our  might.     This  treaty  we 
have  fulfilled  to  the  letter,  in  the  present  instance.     We  long  ago 
reminded  France  of  our  engagements  with  Portugal;  and  we  have 
received  repeated  assurances  that  it  is  the  determination  of  France 
rigidly  to  respect  the  independence  of  that  kingdom.     Portugal 
certainly  did  show  some  jealousy  (as  has  been  asserted)  with  re- 
spect to  the  Congress  of  Verona;  and  she  applied  to  this  Govern- 
ment to  know  whether  her  affairs  had  been  brought  before  the 
Congress.     I  was  half  afraid  of  giving  offence,  when  I  said — 
"  the  name  of  Portugal  was  never  mentioned." — "  What,  not 
mentioned?  not  a  word  about  the  new  institutions?" — "  No,  not 
one.     If  mentioned  at  all,  it  was  only  with  reference  to  the  slave 
trade."     In  truth,  from  the  beginning  to  the  close  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Congress,  not  the  most  distant  intimation  was  given  of 
any  unfriendly  design  against  Portugal. 

Now,  before  I  quit  the  Peninsula,  a  single  word  more  to  the 
honourable  member  for  Westminster  and  his  constituents.  Have 
they  estimated  the  burdens  of  a  Peninsular  war?— God  forbid 
that,  if  honour,  or  good  faith,  or  national  interest  required  it,  we 
should  decline  the  path  of  duty  because  it  is  encompassed  with 
difficulties;  but  at  least  we  ought  to  keep  some  consideration  of 
these  difficulties  in  our  minds.     We  have  experience  to  teach  us 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  391 

with  something  like  accuracy,  what  are  the  pecuniary  demands  of 
the  contest  for  which  we  must  be  prepared,  if  we  enter  into  a  war 
in  the  Peninsula.  To  take  only  two  years  and  a  half  of  the  last 
Peninsular  war,  of  which  I  happen  to  have  the  accounts  at  hand, 
from  the  beginning  of  1S12,  to  the  glorious  conclusion  of  the  cam- 
paign of  1814,  the  expense  incurred  in  Spain  and  Portugal  was 
about  £33,000,000.  Is  that  an  expense  to  be  incurred  again,  with- 
out some  peremptory  and  unavoidable  call  of  duty,  of  honour,  or 
of  interest? 

Such  a  call  we  are  at  all  times  ready  to  answer,  come — (to  use 
the  expression  so  much  decried)  come  what  may.  But  there  is 
surely  sufficient  ground  for  pausing,  before  we  acquiesce  in  the 
short  and  flippant  deduction  of  a  rash  consequence  from  false  pre- 
mises, which  has  been  so  glibly  echoed  from  one  quarter  to  ano- 
ther, during  the  last  four  months.  "  0 !  we  must  go  to  war  with 
France,  for  we  are  bound  to  go  to  war  in  defence  of  Portugal. 
Portugal  will  certainly  join  Spain  against  France;  France  will 
then  attack  Portugal;  and  then  our  defensive  obligation  comes  into 
play."  Sir,  it  does  no  such  thing.  If  Portugal  is  attacked  by 
France,  or  by  any  other  Power,  without  provocation,  Great  Britain 
is  indeed  bound  to  defend  her:  but  if  Portugal  wilfully  seeks  the 
hostility  of  France,  by  joining  against  France  in  a  foreign  quarrel, 
there  is  no  such  obligation  on  Great  Britain.  The  letter  of  trea- 
ties* is  as  clear  as  the  law  of  nations!  is  precise  upon  this  point: 
and  as  I  believe  no  British  statesman  ever  lived,  so  I  hope  none 
ever  will  live,  unwise  enough  to  bind  his  country  by  so  prepos- 
terous an  obligation,  as  that  she  should  go  to  war,  not  merely  in 
defence  of  an  ally,  but  at  the  will  and  beck  of  that  ally,  whenever 

*  (Extract  of  the  treaty  of  defensive  alliance,  between  Great  Britain,  Portu- 
gal, and  the  States  General,  signed  at  Lisbon,  May  16,  1703.) 

"Art.  II.  If  ever  it  shall  happen  that  the  Kings  of  Spain  and  France,  either 
the  present  or  future,  that  both  of  them  together,  or  either  of  them  separately, 
shall  make  war,  or  give  occasion  to  suspect  that  they  intend  to  make  war  upon 
the  kingdom  of  Portugal,  either  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  or  in  its  dominions 
beyond  Seas;  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  lords  the  States 
General  shall  use  their  friendly  offices  with  the  said  Kings,  or  either  of  them, 
in  order  to  persuade  them  to  observe  the  terms  of  peace  towards  Portugal,  and 
not  to  make  war  upon  it. 

"  Art.  III.  But  these  good  offices  not  proving  successful,  but  altogether  inef- 
fectual, so  that  war  should  be  made  by  the  aforesaid,  kings,  or  by  either  of 
them,  upon  Portugal;  the  above  mentioned  Powers  of  Great  Britain  and  Hol- 
land shall  make  war,  with  all  their  force,  upon  the  aforesaid  King  or  Kings, 
who  shall  carry  hostile  arms  into  Portugal.'1'' 

\  "  Sed  et  hie  distinguendum  est,  an  Fiederatus  meus  injuriam  patiatur,  an 

ipse  inforat;  si  patiatur,  promissa  implebo;  si  inferat,  non  implebo;" "  Cum 

pacta  aiant  '  qui  hello  petitur,1  eorum  alia  interpretatio  esse  nequit  quam  ei 
Foederato  auxilia  prffistitum  iri,  qui  nullo  jure  lacessitur  bello, — qui  ab  hostr 
petitur,  non  qui  hoslem  ipse  petit.''' — Bynkershoek,  Lib.  I.  Cap.  IX.  p.  72. 


392  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

ambition,  or  false  policy,  or  a  predominant  faction,  may  plunge 
that  ally  into  wars  of  her  own  seeking  and  contriving. 

On  the  other  hand,  would  it  have  been  advisable  for  us  to  pre- 
cipitate Portugal  into  the  war?  Undoubtedly  we  might  have  done 
so.  For  by  declaring  war  against  France,  on  behalf  of  Spain,  we 
should  have  invited  France  (and  there  was  perhaps  a  party  in 
Portugal  ready  enough  to  second  the  invitation)  to  extend  her  hos- 
tilities to  the  whole  of  the  Peninsula.  But  was  it  an  object  of 
sound  policy  to  bring  a  war  upon  our  hands,  of  which  it  was  clear 
that  we  must  bear  all  the  burden  ?  And  was  not  the  situation  of 
Portugal,  then,  so  far  from  being  a  reason  for  war,  that  it  added 
the  third  motive,  and  one  of  the  greatest  weight,  to  our  preference 
for  a  pacific  policy? 

Fourthly. — As  to  our  continental  allies.  There  was  surely 
nothing  in  their  situation  to  induce  Great  Britain  to  take  a  part  in 
the  war.  Their  Ministers  have  indeed  been  withdrawn  from  Ma- 
drid; but  no  alarm  has  been  excited,  by  that  act,  in  Spain.  No 
case  has  occurred  which  gives  to  France  a  right  to  call  for  the  as- 
sistance of  the  allies.  But  had  the  British  Government  taken  a 
decided  part  in  support  of  the  Spaniards,  a  material  change  might 
have  been  produced  in  the  aspect  of  affairs.  Spain,  who  has  now 
to  contend  with  France  alone,  might  in  that  case  have  had  to  con- 
tend with  other  and  more  overwhelming  forces.  Without  push- 
ing these  considerations  farther,  enough  surely  has  been  said,  to 
indicate  the  expediency  of  adhering  to  that  line  of  policy  which 
we  successfully  pursued  at  Verona;  and  of  endeavouring,  by  our 
example,  as  well  as  by  our  influence,  to  prevent  the  complication, 
and  circumscribe  the  range  of  hostilities.  Let  it  be  considered, 
how  much  the  duration  and  the  disasters  of  a  war  may  depend 
upon  the  multitude  or  the  fewness  of  its  elements;  and  how  much 
the  accession  of  any  new  party,  or  parties,  to  a  war,  must  add  to 
the  difficulties  of  pacification. 

I  come  next  to  consider  the  situation  of  this  country.  And 
first,  as  to  our  ability  for  the  undertaking  of  a  war.  I  have  already 
said,  that  the  country  is  yet  rich  enough  in  resources — in  means 
— in  strength — to  engage  in  any  contest  to  which  national  honour 
may  call  her;  but  I  must  at  the  same  time  be  allowed  to  say,  that 
her  strength  has  very  recently  been  strained  to  the  utmost;  that 
her  means  are  at  that  precise  stage  of  recovery,  which  makes  it 
most  desirable  that  the  progress  of  that  recovery  should  not  be  in- 
terrupted; that  her  resources,  now  in  a  course  of  rapid  reproduc- 
tion, would,  by  any  sudden  check,  be  thrown  into  a  disorder  more 
deep  and  difficult  of  cure.  It  is  in  reference  to  this  particular 
condition  of  the  country,  that  I  said  on  a  former  evening,  what 
the  honourable  member  for  Surrey  (Mr.  Holme  Sumner)  has 
since  done  me  the  honour  to  repeat,  "  If  we  are  to  be  driven  into 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  393 

war,  sooner  or  later,  let  it  be  later:"  let  it  be  after  we  have  had 
time  to  turn,  as  it  were,  the  corner  of  our  difficulties — after  we 
shall  have  retrieved  a  little  more  effectively  our  exhausted  re- 
sources, and  have  assured  ourselves  of  means  and  strength,  not 
only  to  begin,  but  to  keep  up  the  conflict,  if  necessary,  for  an  in- 
definite period  of  time. 

For  let  no  man  flatter  himself  that  a  war  now  entered  upon 
would  be  a  short  one.  Have  we  so  soon  forgotten  the  course  and 
progress  of  the  last  war?  For  my  part,  I  remember  well  the  antici- 
pations with  which  it  began.  I  remember  hearing  a  man,  who 
will  be  allowed  to  have  been  distinguished  by  as  great  sagacity  as 
ever  belonged  to  the  most  consummate  statesman — I  remember 
hearing  Mr.  Pitt,  not  in  his  place  in  Parliament  (where  it  might 
have  been  his  object  and  his  duty  to  animate  zeal  and  to  encour- 
age hope,)  but  in  the  privacy  of  his  domestic  circle,  among  the 
friends  in  whom  he  confided — I  remember  well  hearing  him  say, 
in  1793,  that  he  expected  that  war  to  be  of  very  short  duration. 
That  duration  ran  out  to  a  period  beyond  the  life  of  him  who 
made  the  prediction.  It  outlived  his  successor,  and  the  successors 
of  that  successor,  and  at  length  came  suddenly  and  unexpectedly 
to  an  end,  through  a  combination  of  miraculous  events,  such  as 
the  most  sanguine  imagination  could  not  have  anticipated.  With 
that  example  full  in  my  recollection,  I  could  not  act  upon  the 
presumption  that  a  new  war,  once  begun,  would  be  speedily 
ended.  Let  no  such  expectation  induce  us  to  enter  a  path,  which, 
however  plain  and  clear  it  may  appear  at  the  outset  of  the  journey, 
we  should  presently  see  branching  into  intricacies,  and  becoming 
encumbered  with  obstructions — until  we  were  involved  in  a  laby- 
rinth, from  which  not  we  ourselves  only,  but  the  generation  to 
come,  might  in  vain  endeavour  to  find  the  means  of  extrication. 

For  the  confirmation  of  these  observations,  I  appeal  to  that 
which  I  have  stated  as  the  last  of  the  considerations  in  reference 
to  which  the  policy  of  the  British  Government  was  calculated — I 
mean,  to  the  present  state  of  the  world.  No  man  can  witness 
with  more  delight  than  I  do  the  widening  diffusion  of  political 
liberty.  Acknowledging  all  the  blessings  which  we  have  long 
derived  from  liberty  ourselves,  I  do  not  grudge  to  others  a  par- 
ticipation in  them.  I  would  not  prohibit  other  nations  from 
kindling  their  torches  at  the  flame  of  British  freedom.  But  let 
us  not  deceive  ourselves.  The  general  acquisition  of  free  insti- 
tutions is  not  necessarily  a  security  for  general  peace.  I  am 
obliged  to  confess  that  its  immediate  tendency  is  the  other  way. 
Take  an  example  from  France  herself.  The  Representative 
Chamber  of  France  has  undoubtedly  been  the  source  of  those 
hostilities,  which  I  should  not  have  despaired  of  seeing  averted 
through  the  pacific  disposition  of  the  French  King.  Look  at  the 
52 


394  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

democracies  of  the  ancient  world.  Their  existence,  I  may  say, 
was  in  war.  Look  at  the  petty  republics  of  Italy  in  more  modern 
times.  In  truth,  long  intervals  of  profound  peace  are  much  more 
readily  to  be  found  under  settlements  of  a  monarchical  form.  Did 
the  republic  of  Rome,  in  the  whole  career  of  her  existence,  enjoy 
an  interval  of  peace  of  as  long  duration  as  that  which  this  country 
enjoyed  under  the  administration  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole? — and 
that  interval,  be  it  remembered,  was  broken  short  through  the  in- 
stigation of  popular  feeling.  I  am  not  saying  that  this  is  right  or 
wrong — but  that  it  is  so.  It  is  in  the  very  nature  of  free  govern- 
ments— and  more  especially,  perhaps,  of  governments  newly 
free.  The  principle  which  for  centuries  has  given  ascendancy  to 
Great  Britain,  is  that  she  was  the  single  free  state  in  Europe. 
The  spread  of  the  representative  system  destroys  that  singularity, 
and  must  (however  little  we  may  like  it)  proportionably  enfeeble 
our  preponderating  influence — unless  we  measure  our  steps  cau- 
tiously, and  accommodate  our  conduct  to  the  times.  Let  it  not 
be  supposed  that  I  would  disparage  the  progress  of  freedom,  that 
I  wish  checks  to  be  applied  to  it,  or  that  I  am  pleased  at  the  sight 
of  obstacles  thrown  in  its  way.  Far,  very  far  from  it.  I  am  only 
desiring  it  to  be  observed,  that  we  cannot  expect  to  enjoy  at  the 
same  time  incompatible  advantages.  Freedom  must  ever  be  the 
greatest  of  blessings;  but  it  ceases  to  be  a  distinction,  in  propor- 
tion as  other  nations  become  free. 

But,  Sir,  this  is  only  a  partial  view  of  the  subject;  and  one  to 
which  I  have  been  led  by  the  unreasonable  expectations  of  those 
who,  while  they  make  loud  complaints  of  the  diplomacy  of  Eng- 
land, as  less  commanding  than  heretofore,  unconsciously  specify 
the  very  causes  which  necessarily  diminish  and  counteract  its 
efficacy. 

There  are,  however,  other  considerations  to  which  I  beg  leave 
to  turn  the  attention  of  the  House. 

It  is  perfectly  true,  as  has  been  argued  by  more  than  one  hon- 
ourable member  in  this  debate,  that  there  is  a  contest  going  on  in 
the  world,  between  the  spirit  of  unlimited  monarchy,  and  the 
spirit  of  unlimited  democracy.  Between  these  two  spirits,  it  may 
be  said,  that  strife  is  either  openly  in  action,  or  covertly  at  work, 
throughout  the  greater  portion  of  Europe.  It  is  true,  as  has  also 
been  argued,  that  in  no  former  period  in  history  is  there  so  close 
a  resemblance  to  the  present,  as  in  that  of  the  Reformation.  So 
far  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  (Sir  J.  Mackintosh)  and  the 
honourable  baronet  (Sir  F.  Burdett)  were  justified  in  holding  up 
Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  as  an  example  for  our  study.  The  hon- 
ourable member  for  Westminster  too,  has  observed,  that  in  imita- 
tion of  Queen  Elizabeth's  policy,  the  proper  place  for  this  coun- 
try, in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  is  at  the  head  of  free  na- 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  39S< 

tions  struggling  against  arbitrary  power.  Sir,  undoubtedly  there 
is,  as  I  have  admitted,  a  general  resemblance  between  the  two 
periods;  forasmuch  as  in  both  we  see  a  conflict  of  opinions,  and 
in  both  a  bond  of  union  growing  out  of  those  opinions,  which  es- 
tablishes, between  parts  and  classes  of  different  nations,  a  stricter 
communion  than  belongs  to  community  of  country.  It  is  true — 
it  is,  I  own  I  think,  a  formidable  truth — that  in  this  respect  the 
two  periods  do  resemble  each  other.  But  though  there  is  this 
general  similarity,  there  is  one  circumstance  which  mainly  dis- 
tinguishes the  present  time  from  the  reign  of  Elizabeth;  and 
which,  though  by  no  means  unimportant  in  itself,  has  been  over- 
looked by  all  those  to  whose  arguments  I  am  now  referring. 
Elizabeth  was  herself  amongst  the  revolters  against  the  authority 
of  the  Church  of  Rome;  but  we  are  not  amongst  those  who  are 
engaged  in  a  struggle  against  the  spirit  of  unlimited  monarchy. 
We  have  fought  that  fight.  We  have  taken  our  station.  We 
have  long  ago  assumed  a  character  differing  altogether  from  that 
of  those  around  us.  It  may  have  been  the  duty  and  the  interest 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  make  common  cause  with — to  put  herself 
at  the  head  of — those  who  supported  the  Reformation:  but  can  it 
be  either  our  interest  or  our  duty  to  ally  ourselves  with  revolu- 
tion? Let  us  be  ready  to  afford  refuge  to  the  sufferers  of  either 
extreme  party;  but  it  is  not  surely  our  policy  to  become  the  as- 
sociate of  either.  Our  situation  now  is  rather  what  that  of  Eliza- 
beth would  have  been,  if  the  Church  of  England  had  been,  in  her 
time,  already  completely  established,  in  uncontested  supremacy; 
acknowledged  as  a  legitimate  settlement,  unassailed  and  unassaila- 
ble by  papal  power.  Does  my  honourable  and  learned  friend 
believe  that  the  policy  of  Elizabeth  would  in  that  case  have  been 
the  same? 

Now,  our  complex  constitution  is  established  with  so  happy  a 
mixture  of  its  elements — its  tempered  monarchy  and  its  regulated 
freedom — that  we  have  nothing  to  fear  from  foreign  despotism — 
nothing  at  home  but  from  capricious  change.  We  have  nothing 
to  fear,  unless,  distasteful  of  the  blessings  which  we  have  earned, 
and  of  the  calm  which  we  enjoy,  we  let  loose  again,  with  rash 
hand,  the  elements  of  our  constitution,  and  set  them  once  more 
to  fight  against  each  other.  In  this  enviable  situation,  what  have 
we  in  common  with  the  struggles  which  are  going  on  in  other 
countries,  for  the  attainment  of  objects  of  which  we  have  been 
long  in  undisputed  possession?  We  look  down  upon  those  strug- 
gles from  the  point  to  which  we  have  happily  attained,  not  with 
the  cruel  delight  which  is  described  by  the  poet,  as  arising  from 
the  contemplation  of  agitations  in  which  the  spectator  is  not  ex- 
posed   to   share;    but   with   an  anxious  desire  to  mitigate,  to  en- 


4^6  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

lighten,  to  reconcile,  to  save — by  our  example  in  all  cases — by 
our  exertions  where  we  can  usefully  interpose. 

Our  station,  then,  is  essentially  neutral:  neutral  not  only  be- 
tween contending  nations,  but  between  conflicting  principles.  The 
object  of  the  Government  has  been  to  preserve  that  station;  and 
for  the  purpose  of  preserving  it  to  maintain  peace.  By  remain- 
ing at  peace  ourselves,  we  best  secure  Portugal;  by  remaining  at 
peace,  we  take  the  best  chance  of  circumscribing  the  range,  and 
shortening  the  duration  of  the  war,  which  we  could  not  prevent 
from  breaking  out  between  France  and  Spain.  By  remaining  at 
peace,  we  shall  best  enable  ourselves  to  take  an  effectual  and  de- 
cisive part  in  any  contest  into  which  we  may  be  hereafter  forced 
against  our  will. 

The  papers  on  the  table,  the  last  paper  at  least  (I  mean  the  des- 
patch of  the  31st  of  March,  in  which  is  stated  what  we  expect 
from  France,)  ought,  I  think,  to  have  satisfied  the  honourable  bar- 
onet, who  said  that,  provided  the  Government  was  firm  in  pur- 
pose, he  should  not  be  disposed  to  find  fault  with  their  having 
acted  suaviter  in  modo.  In  that  despatch  our  neutrality  is  quali- 
fied with  certain  specified  conditions.  To  those  conditions  France 
has  given  her  consent.  When  we  say  in  that  despatch,  we  are 
"  satisfied"  that  those  conditions  will  be  observed,  is  it  not  obvi- 
ous that  we  use  a  language  of  courtesy,  which  is  always  most  be- 
comingly employed  between  independent  powers  ?  Who  does  not 
know  that,  in  diplomatic  correspondence,  under  that  suavity  of 
expression  is  implied  an  "  or,"  which  imports  another  alterna- 
tive? 

So  far,  then,  as  the  interests  and  honour  of  Great  Britain  are 
concerned,  those  interests  and  that  honour  have  been  scrupulously 
maintained.  Great  Britain  has  come  out  of  the  negotiations, 
claiming  all  the  respect  that  is  due  to  her;  and,  in  a  tone  not  to 
be  mistaken,  enforcing  all  her  rights.  It  is  true  that  her  policy 
has  not  been  violent  or  precipitate.  She  has  not  sprung  forth 
armed,  from  the  impulse  of  a  sudden  indignation;  she  has  looked 
before  and  after:  she  has  reflected  on  all  the  circumstances  which 
beset,  and  on  all  the  consequences  which  may  follow,  so  awful  a 
decision  as  war;  and  instead  of  descending  into  the  arena  as  party 
in  a  quarrel  not  her  own,  she  has  assumed  the  attitude  and  the  at- 
tributes of  justice,  holding  high  the  balance,  and  grasping,  but  not 
unsheathing  the  sword. 

Sir,  I  will  now  trouble  the  House  no  further  than  to  call  its  at- 
tion  to  the  precise  nature  of  the  motion  which  it  has  to  dispose 
of  this  night.  Sir,  the  result  of  the  negotiations,  as  I  have  be- 
fore stated,  rendered  it  unnecessary  and  irregular  for  the  Govern- 
ment to  call  for  the  expression  of  a  parliamentary  opinion  upon 
them.     It  was,  however,  competent  for  any  honourable  member 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO   SPAIN.  397 

to  suggest  to  the  House  the  expression  of  such  opinion;  which,  if 
expressed  at  all,  it  will  readily  be  admitted  ought  to  be  expressed 
intelligibly.  Now  what  is  the  Address  which,  after  a  fortnight's 
notice,  and  after  the  menaces  with  which  it  has  been  announced 
and  ushered  in,  the  House  has  been  desired  to  adopt?  The  hon- 
ourable gentleman's  Address  first  proposes  to  "  represent  to  His 
Majesty,  that  the  disappointment  of  His  Majesty's  benevolent  so- 
licitude to  preserve  general  peace,  appears  to  this  House  to  have, 
in  a  great  measure,  arisen  from  the  failure  of  his  Ministers  to 
make  the  most  earnest,  vigorous,  and  solemn  protest  against  the 
pretended  right  of  the  sovereigns  assembled  at  Verona,  to  make 
war  on  Spain  in  order  to  compel  alterations  in  her  political  insti- 
tutions." I  must  take  the  liberty  to  say  that  this  is  not  a  true  de- 
scription. The  war  I  have  shown  to  be  a  French  war,  not  arising 
from  any  thing  done,  at  Verona.  But  to  finish  the  sentence: — 
"  as  well  as  against  the  subsequent  pretension  of  the  French  Gov- 
ernment, that  nations  cannot  lawfully  enjoy  any  civil  privileges 
but  from  the  spontaneous  grant  of  their  kings."  I  must  here 
again  take  the  liberty  to  say  that  the  averment  is  not  correct. 
Whatever  the  misconduct  of  Government  in  these  negotiations 
may  have  been,  it  is  plain  matter-of-fact,  that  they  protested  in 
the  strongest  manner  against  the  pretension  put  forward  in  the 
speech  of  the  King  of  France,  that  the  liberties  and  franchises  of 
a  nation  should  be  derived  exclusively  from  the  throne.  It  is  on 
record,  in  this  very  Address,  that  the  honourable  gentlemen  them- 
selves could  not  have  protested  more  strongly  than  the  Govern- 
ment; since,  in  the  next  sentence  to  that  which  I  have  just  read, 
in  order  to  deliver  themselves  with  the  utmost  force,  they  have 
condescended  to  borrow  my  words.     For  the  Address  goes  on: 

" principles  destructive  of  the  rights  of  all  independent 

states,  which  strike  at  the  root  of  the  British  Constitution,  and 
are  subversive  of  His  Majesty's  legitimate  title  to  the  throne." 
Now  by  far  the  strongest  expression  in  this  sentence, — the  meta- 
phor (such  as  it  is)  about  "  striking  at  the  root  of  the  British  Con- 
stitution,"— is  mine.  It  is  in  my  despatch  to  Sir  Charles  Stuart 
of  the  4th  of  February.  I  claim  it  with  the  pride  and  fondness 
of  an  author;  when  I  see  it  plagiarized  by  those  who  condemn 
me  for  not  using  sufficiently  forcible  language,  and  who  yet  in  the 
very  breath  in  which  they  pronounce  that  condemnation,  are 
driven  to  borrow  my  very  words  to  exemplify  the  omission  which 
they  impute. 

So  much  for  the  justice  of  the  Address;  now  for  its  usefulness 
and  efficacy. 

What  is  the  full  and  sufficient  declaration  of  the  sense  of  the 
House  on  this  most  momentous  crisis,  which  is  contained  in  this 
monitory  expostulation  to  the  throne?    It  proceeds:  "  Further  to 

KK 


3^8  NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN. 

declare  to  His  Majesty  the  surprise  and  sorrow  with  which  this 
House  has  observed  that  His  Majesty's  Ministers  should  have  ad- 
vised the  Spanish  Government,  while  so  unwarrantably  menaced" 
— (this  "so"  must  refer  to  something  out  of  doors,  for  there  is  not 
a  word  in  the  previous  part  of  this  precious  composition  to  which 
it  can  be  grammatically  applied;) — "  to  alter  their  constitution,  in 
the  hope  of  averting  invasion;  a  concession  which  alone  would 
have  involved  the  total  sacrifice  of  national  independence,  and 
which  was  not  even  palliated  by  an  assurance  from  France,  that 
on  receiving  so  dishonourable  a  submission,  she  would  desist  from 
her  unprovoked  aggression."  (I  deny  this  statement,  by  the 
way;  it  is  a  complete  misrepresentation.)  "  Finally  to  represent 
to  His  Majesty,  that  in  the  judgment  of  this  House  a  tone  of  more 
dignified  remonstrance  would  have  been  better  calculated  to  pre- 
serve the  peace  of  the  Continent,  and  thereby  to  secure  this  na- 
tion more  effectually  from  the  hazard  of  being  involved  in  the  ca- 
lamities of  wrar."  And  there  it  ends! — with  a  mere  conjecture  of 
what  "  would  have  been!'''' 

Is  this  an  Address  for  a  British  Parliament,  carrying  up  a  com- 
plaint that  the  nation  is  on  the  eve  of  war,  but  conveying  not  a 
word  of  advice  as  to  the  course  to  be  followed  at  such  a  moment? 
I,  for  my  own  part,  beg  the  House  not  to  agree  to  such  an  Address 
— for  this  reason,  amongst  others,  that  as  it  will  be  my  duty  to  ten- 
der my  humble  advice  to  His  Majesty  as  to  the  answer  to  be  given 
to  it,  I  am  sure  I  shall  not  know  what  to  advise  his  Majesty  to 
say: — the  only  answer  which  occurs  to  me  as  suitable  for  the  oc- 
casion is,  "  Indeed!  I  am  very  sorry  for  it." 

This  then  is  the  upshot  of  a  motion  which  was  to  show  that  the 
present  Ministers  are  unfit  to  carry  on  war  or  to  maintain  peace; 
and,  by  implication,  that  there  are  those  who  know  better  how 
such  matters  should  be  managed.  This  is  the  upshot  of  the  motion, 
which  was  to  dislodge  us  from  our  seats,  and  to  supply  our  places 
with  the  honourable  gentleman  opposite.  It  is  afiirmed  that  we 
are  now  on  the  eve  of  war,  the  peace  which  we  have  maintained 
being  insecure.  If  we  are  on  the  eve  of  war,  will  not  this  be  the 
first  time  that  a  British  House  of  Parliament  has  approached  the 
throne,  on  such  an  occasion,  without  even  a  conditional  pledge  of 
support?  If  wrar  is  a  matter  even  of  possible  contemplation,  it 
surely  becomes  this  House  either  to  concur  in  an  Address  for  the 
removal  of  the  Ministers,  who  have  needlessly  incurred  that  dan- 
ger; or,  as  the  amendment  moved  by  the  honourable  member  for 
Yorkshire  proposes,  to  tender  to  His  Majesty  a  cordial  assurance 
that  this  House  will  stand  by  His  Majesty  in  sustaining  the  dig- 
nity of  his  crown,  and  the  rights  and  interests  of  his  people.  I 
trust,  therefore,  Sir,  that  by  rejecting  this  most  incorrect  and  in- 
adequate Address — as  unworthy  of  the  House  as  it  is  of  the  oc- 


NEGOTIATIONS  RELATIVE  TO  SPAIN.  399 

casion;  an  Address  contradictory  in  some  parts  to  itself;  in  more, 
to  the  established  facts  of  the  case;  and  in  all  to  the  ascertained 
sense  of  the  country;  and  by  adopting,  in  its  room,  the  amend- 
ment moved  by  the  honourable  member  for  Yorkshire,  and  sec- 
onded by  the  member  for  London,  the  House  will  stamp  the  pol- 
icy which  the  King's  Ministers  have  pursued — feebly  perhaps — 
perhaps  erroneously — but  at  all  events  from  pure  motives,  in  the 
sincerity  of  their  hearts,  and  as  conducive,  in  their  judgment,  to 
the  tranquillity,  welfare,  and  happiness,  not  of  this  country  only, 
but  of  the  world — with  that  highest  of  all  sanctions,  the  deliber- 
ate approbation  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

The  original  Address  was  negatived  without  a  division.  On  the  amended 
Address  the  House  divided.     The  numbers  were, 

For  the  Amendment       ....  372 
Against  it      -----        -  20 

Majority        -        -        352 


400 


THE  ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY. 

MAY  15th,  1823. 

Mr.  F.  Buxton  submitted  the  following  Resolution: — 

"  That  the  state  of  Slavery  is  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  the  British  Con- 
stitution, and  of  the  Christian  Religion;  and  that  it  ought  to  be  gradually  abol- 
ished throughout  the  British  Colonies  with  as  much  expedition  as  may  be  found 
consistent  with  a  due  regard  to  the  well  being  of  the  parties  concerned." 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning  said: — Sir,  the  appeal  to  His  Ma- 
jesty's Ministers  with  which  the  honourable  gentleman  concluded 
his  speech,  makes  me  feel  it  my  duty  to  address  myself  to  the 
House  at  this  early  period  of  the  debate,  for  the  purpose  of  stating, 
without  reserve,  the  opinions  entertained  by  myself  and  my  col- 
leagues with  respect  to  this  most  important,  and,  I  must  say,  at 
the  same  time  (notwithstanding  what  has  fallen  from  the  honour- 
able gentleman,)  this  most  fearful  question.  I  never  in  my  life 
proceeded  to  the  discussion  of  any  question  under  a  stronger  im- 
pression of  its  manifold  difficulties;  not  indeed  in  reference  to  the 
principles  on  which  my  opinions  are  grounded,  nor  with  respect 
to  the  practical  conclusion  to  which  I  may  think  it  expedient  to 
come;  but  on  account  of  the  dangers,  which,  even  after  all  that 
the  honourable  gentleman  has  said  to  the  contrary,  appear  to  me 
to  attend  a  discussion,  in  which  one  rash  word,  perhaps  even  one 
too  ardent  expression,  might  raise  a  flame  not  easily  to  be  extin- 
guished. 

I  mention  these  circumstances,  Sir,  not  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
puting any  blame  to  the  honourable  gentleman,  or  to  those  friends 
in  conjunction  with  whom  he  has  brought  forward  the  resolution 
in  your  hands,  nor  for  that  of  discouraging  fair  and  free  delibera- 
tion; but  I  take  the  liberty  of  throwing  out  a  caution  to  those 
who,  in  a  more  advanced  stage  of  the  discussion,  and  when  con- 
flicting opinions  may  have  produced  a  warmth  which  I  do  not 
feel,  might  be  induced  to  colour  more  deeply  the  pictures  which 
the  honourable  gentleman  himself  has  sketched  with  no  light 
hand;  and  who  might  thus  excite  feelings  which  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  awaken  for  the  accomplishment  of  any  practical  good,  but 
which,  if  awakened,  might  either  impede  the  attainment  of  that 
good,  or  expose  it  to  gratuitous  hazard. 

I  And  here  the  honourable  gentleman  must  allow  me  to  ask — 
what  had  the  latter  part  of  his  speech  to  do  with  his  present  pur- 
pose? Why  did  he  think  it  expedient  to  recur  to  the  former  de- 
linquencies of  this  country,  which,  if  capable  of  expiation,  have 
been  expiated?    Why  did  he  go  back  to  a  state  of  things  in  the 


ABOLITION   OF   SLAVERY.  401 

West  Indies,  to  which,  so  far  as  they  could  be  remedied,  remedy 
has  been  applied?    Why  did   he   go  out  of  his  way  to  recal  the 
horrors  and   cruelties  connected  with  the  now  abolished  Slave 
Trade,  which  were  at  former  times  brought  under  the  notice  of 
Parliament?/  Why,  when  he  was  stirring  a  question  totally  new 
— (and  I  mention  that  character  of  the  question,  not  as  matter  of 
blame,  but  as  matter  of  fact) — why  did  he  mix  it  up  with  that 
other  odious  question,  often,  indeed,  discussed,  but  long  ago  de- 
cided, with  which,  during  an  agitation  of  twenty  years,  it  was 
never  before  placed  in  yw-r/a-position,  but  for  the  purpose  of  be- 
ing contrasted  with,  and  separated  from  it?    In  all  former  discus- 
sions, in  all  former  votes  against  the  Slave  Trade,  it  cannot  surely 
be  forgotten,  that  the  ulterior  purpose  of  emancipation  was  studi- 
ously disclaimed.     I  have  myself  frequently  joined  in  that  dis- 
claimer on  former  occasions.     In  doing  so,  I  certainly  did  not 
mean  to  advance  so  untenable  a  proposition  as  that  it  was  intended 
to  purchase  the  abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade  by  an  indefinite  con- 
tinuance of  slavery.    Undoubtedly  that  was  not  my  meaning;  but 
what  I  at  least  did  mean — what  in  all  fairness  any  man  who  took 
the  same  distinction  must  be  held  to  have  meant — was,  that  the 
two  questions  should  be  kept  separate,  and  argued  on  their  sepa- 
rate grounds;  that  the  odium  of  that  which  we  were  labouring 
to  abolish  should  not  be  brought  to  bear  with  increased  intensity 
on  that  of  which  we  were  compelled  to  allow  the  continuance. 
Slavery,  not  willingly,  but  necessarily,  was  allowed  to  continue. 
I  do  not  say  that  it  is  therefore  to  continue  indefinitely;  I  speak 
not  of  it  as  a  system  to  be  carefully  preserved  and  cherished,  but 
as  one  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  its  own  nature,  and  with  re- 
ference to  its  inherent  peculiarities.     We  must  be  considered  as 
having  tacitly,  if  not  expressly,  taken  the  engagement,  not,  on 
every  subsequent  discussion,  to   look   back  to  atrocities  which 
have  ceased,  not  to  revive  animosities  which  have  been  extinguish- 
ed, and   to  throw  in  the  teeth  of  those  whose  interests  are  at 
hazard,  cruelties  with  which  they  in  fact  had  no  concern.     After 
such  an  implied  pledge,  it  is  somewhat  hard  in  the  honourable 
gentleman  to  revert  to  those  past-gone  topics,  instead  of  confining 
himself  to   facts  and  arguments  which  properly  belong  to  the 
motion  which  he  has  introduced. 

I  will  not  follow  the  honourable  gentleman  through  the  various 
matters  of  this  kind  which  he  has  brought  to  his  aid;  but  I  will 
here  take  the  liberty  to  dismiss  the  consideration  of  the  Slave 
Trade,  as  of  a  thing  forgotten  and  gone  by:  and  will  entreat  the 
House  to  look  at  the  present  situation  of  the  West  Indies,  not  as 
at  a  population  accumulated  by  a  succession  of  crimes  such  as 
those  which  the  honourable  gentleman  has  detailed,  but  simply 
as  it  is. 

53  KK* 


402  ABOLITION   OF   SLAVERY. 

(The  honourable  gentleman  has  treated  this  subject  rather  with 
powerful  declamation  than  with  sober  statement:  for  I  must  beg 
leave  to  consider  as  a  figure  of  eloquence,  rather  than  as  a  practi- 
cal argument,  the  intimation  that  we  must  deal  with  this  question, 
not  as  a  matter  of  justice  and  judgment,  but  of  impulse  and  feel- 
ing. That  is  not  a  ground  on  which  Parliament  can  be  called 
upon  to  act.  The  manner  in  which  the  black  population  of  the 
West  Indies  has  been  collected,  may  indeed  be  the  subject  of  re- 
flection to  the  historian,  or  discussion  to  the  moralist;  but,  in  call- 
ing upon  the  legislature  to  adopt  a  measure  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, and  of  the  utmost  difficulty,  the  honourable  gentleman 
addresses  himself  not  to  the  prudence,  but  to  the  feeling  of  the 
House.  I  confess  it  seems  to  me  that  he  pursues  the  course  least 
likely  to  lead  to  a  satisfactory  result.^ 

Looking,  then,  at  the  present  condition  of  the  West  Indies,  I 
find  there  a  numerous  black  population,  with  a  comparatively 
small  proportion  of  whites.  The  question  to  be  decided  is,  how 
civil  rights,  moral  improvement,  and  general  happiness  are  to  be 
communicated  to  this  overpowering  multitude  of  slaves,  with 
safety  to  the  lives,  and  security  to  the  interests  of  the  white  pop- 
ulation, our  fellow  subjects  and  fellow  citizens.  Is  it  possible  that 
there  can  be  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  this  question?  Is  it 
possible  that  those  most  nearly  concerned  in  the  present  state  of 
property  in  the  West  Indies,  and  those  who  contemplate  the 
great  subject  with  the  eye  of  the  philosopher  and  the  moralist, 
should  look  at  it  in  any  other  than  one  point  of  view?  Is  it  pos- 
sible for  a  member  of  Parliament,  still  more  for  a  member  of  the 
Government,  to  say  that  he  does  not  wish,  so  far  as  is  consistent 
with  other  great  considerations  necessarily  involved,  to  impart 
every  improvement  which  may  tend  to  raise  in  the  scale  of  being 
the  unfortunate  creatures  now  in  a  state  of  servitude  and  igno- 
rance? Undoubtedly,  sacrifices  ought  to  be  made  for  the  attain- 
ment of  so  great  a  good;  but  would  I,  on  this  account,  strike  at 
the  root  of  the  system — a  system  the  growth  of  ages — and  un- 
hesitatingly and  rashly  level  it  at  a  blow?  Are  we  not  all  aware 
that  there  are  knots  which  cannot  be  suddenly  disentangled,  and 
must  not  be  cut — difficulties  which,  if  solved  at  all,  must  be 
solved  by  patient  consideration  and  impartial  attention,  in  order 
that  we  may  not  do  the  most  flagrant  injustice  by  aiming  at  jus- 
tice itself? 

\The  honourable  gentleman  begins  his  resolution  with  a  recital 
which,  I  confess,  greatly  embarrasses  me.  He  says,  that  "  the 
state  of  slavery  is  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  the  British  Con- 
stitution, and  of  the  Christian  religion."  God  forbid  that  he  who 
ventures  to  object  to  this  statement,  should  therefore  be  held  to 
assert  a  contradiction  to  it.     I  do  not  say  that  the  state  of  slavery 


ABOLITION   OF   SLAVERY.  403 

is  consonant  to  the  principles  of  the  British  Constitution;  still 
less  do  I  say  that  the  state  of  slavery  is  consonant  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Christian  religion.  But  though  I  do  not  advance 
these  propositions  myself,  nevertheless,  I  must  say,  that  in  my 
opinion  the  propositions  of  the  honourable  gentleman  are  not 
practically  true.  If  the  honourable  gentleman  means  that  the 
British  Constitution  does  not  admit  of  slavery  in  that  part  of  the 
British  dominions  where  the  Constitution  is  in  full  play,  undoubt- 
edly his  statement  is  true;  but  it  makes  nothing  for  his  object. 
If,  however,  the  honourable  member  is  to  be  understood  to  main- 
tain that  the  British  Constitution  has  not  tolerated  for  years,  nay 
more,  for  centuries,  in  the  colonies,  the  existence  of  slavery — a 
state  of  society  unknown  in  the  mother  country — that  is  a  posi- 
tion which  is  altogether  without  foundation,  and  positively  and 
practically  untrue.  In  my  opinion,  when  a  proposition  is  sub- 
mitted to  this  House  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  the  House  to 
act  upon  it,  care  should  be  taken  not  to  confound,  as  I  think  is 
done  in  this  Resolution,  what  is  morally  true  with  what  is  histor- 
ically false.  Undoubtedly  the  spirit  of  the  British  Constitution 
is,  in  its  principle,  hostile  to  any  modification  of  slavery.  But 
as  undoubtedly  the  British  Parliament  has  for  ages  tolerated,  sanc- 
tioned, protected,  and  even  encouraged  a  system  of  colonial  es- 
tablishment, of  which  it  well  knew  slavery  to  be  the  foundation^'' 

In  the  same  way,  God  forbid  that  I  should   contend  that  the 
Christian  religion  is  favourable  to  slavery-     But  I  confess  I  feel  a 
strong  objection  to  the  introduction  of  the  name  of  Christianity, 
as  it  were   bodily,  into   any  parliamentary  question^  Religion, 
ought  to  control  the  acts  and  to  regulate  the  consciences  of  gov- 
ernments, as  well  as  of  individuals;  but  when  it  is  put  forward  to 
serve  a  political  purpose,  however  laudable,  it  is  done,  I  think, 
after  the  example  of  ill  times;  and  I  cannot  but  remember  the  ill 
objects  to  which  in  those  times  such  a  practice  was  applied.     As- 
suredly no  Christian  will  deny  that  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion is  hostile  to  slavery,  as  it  is  to  every  abuse  and  misuse  of 
power.     It  is  hostile  to  all  deviations  from  rectitude,  morality, 
and  justice.     But  if  it  be   meant  that  in  the  Christian  religion 
there  is  a  special  denunciation  against  slavery — that  slavery  and 
Christianity  cannot  exist  together — I  think  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman  himself  must,  admit   that  the   proposition   is  historically 
false;  and  again  I  must  say,  thai  I  cannot  consent  to  the  confound- 
ing, for  a  political  purpose,  what  is  morally  true  with  what  is  his- 
torically false.     One   peculiar  characteristic  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, if  I  must  venture  in  this  place  upon  such  a  theme,  is, 
that  it  has  accommodated  itself  to  all  states  of  society,  rather  than 
that  it  has  selected  any  particular  state  of  society  for  the  peculiar 
exercise  of  its  influence.      If  it  has  added  lustre  to  the  sceptre  of 


404  ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY. 

the  sovereign,  it  has  equally  been  the  consolation  of  the  slave.  It 
applies  to  all  ranks  of  life,  to  all  conditions  of  men;  and  the  suf- 
ferings of  this  world,  even  to  those  upon  whom  they  press  most 
heavily,  are  rendered  comparatively  indifferent  by  the  prospect  of 
compensation  in  the  world,  of  which  Christianity  affords  the  as- 
surance. True  it  certainly  is,  that  Christianity  generally  tends  to 
elevate,  not  to  degrade,  the  character  of  man;  but  it  is  not  true, 
in  the  specific  sense  conveyed  in  the  honourable  gentleman's  Res- 
olution; it  is  not  true,  that  there  is  that  in  the  Christian  religion 
which  makes  it  impossible  that  it  should  co-exist  with  slavery  in 
the  world.  Slavery  has  been  known  in  all  times,  and  under  all 
systems  of  religion,  whether  true  or  false.  Non  mens  hie  sermo. 
I  speak  but  what  others  have  written  on  this  point;  and  I  beg 
leave  to  read  to  the  House  a  passage  from  Dr.  Paley,  which  is  di- 
rectly applicable  to  the  subject  that  we  are  discussing. 

"  Slavery  was  a  part  of  the  civil  constitution  of  most  countries 
when  Christianity  appeared;  yet  no  passage  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Christian  scriptures  by  which  it  is  condemned   and  prohibited. 
This  is  true,  for  Christianity,  soliciting  admission  into  all   na- 
tions of  the  world,  abstained,  as  behoved  it,  from  intermeddling 
with  the  civil  institutions  of  any.     But  does  it  follow  from  the 
silence  of  scripture  concerning  them,  that  all  the  civil  institutions 
which  then  prevailed  were  right,  or  that  the  bad  should  not  be 
exchanged  for  better?    Besides  this,  the  discharging  of  all  slaves 
from  all  obligation  to  obey  their  masters,  which  is  the  consequence 
of  pronouncing  slavery  to  be  unlawful,  would  have  no  better  ef- 
fect than  to  let  loose  one  half  of  mankind  upon  the  other.    Slaves 
would  have  been  tempted  to  embrace  a  religion  which  asserted 
their  right  to  freedom — masters  would  hardly  have  been  persuaded 
to  consent  to  claims  founded  upon  such  authority;  the  most  ca- 
lamitous of  all  consequences,  a  bellum  servile,  might  probably 
have  ensued,  to  the  reproach,  if  not  the  extinction,  of  the  Chris- 
tian name.     The  truth  is,  the  emancipation  of  slaves  should  be 
gradual,  and  be  carried  on  by  the  provisions  of  law,  and  under  the 
protection  of  civil  government.     Christianity  can  only  operate  as 
an  alterative.     By  the  mild  diffusion  of  its  light  and  influence,  the 
minds  of  men  are  insensibly  prepared  to  perceive  and  correct  the 
enormities  which  folly,  or  wickedness,  or  accident,  have  intro- 
duced into  their  public  establishments.     In  this  way  the  Greek 
and  Roman  slavery,  and,  since  these,  the  feudal  tyranny,  had  de- 
clined before  it.    And  wre  trust  that,  as  the  knowledge  and  author- 
ity of  the  same  religion  advance  in  the  world,  they  will  abolish 
what  remains  of  tMs  odious  institution." 

The  honourable  gentleman  cannot  wish  more  than  I  do,  that, 
under  this  gradual  operation,  under  this  widening  diffusion  of 
light  and  liberality,  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  religion  may  effect 


ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY.  405 

all  the  objects  he  has  at  heart.     But  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not, 
for  the  practical  attainment  of  his  objects,  desirable  that  that  which 
may  be  the  influencing  spirit,  should  be  put  forward  as  the  active 
agent.     When  Christianity  was  introduced  into  the  world,  it  took 
its  root  amidst  the  galling  slavery  of  the  Roman  empire;  more 
galling  in  many  respects  (though  not  precisely  of  the  same  char- 
acter) than  that  of  which  the  honourable  gentleman,  in  common, 
I  may  say,  with  every  friend  of  humanity,  complains.     Slavery 
at  that  period  gave  to  the  master  the  power  of  life  and  death  over 
his  bondsman:  this  is  undeniable — known  to  every  body.     "  It  a 
servus  homo  est!"  are  the  words  put  by  Juvenal  into  the  mouth 
of  the  fine  lady  who  calls  upon  her  husband  to  crucify  his  slave. 
If  the  evils  of  this  dreadful  system  nevertheless  gradually  vanished 
before  the  gentle  but  certain  influence  of  Christianity,  and  if  the 
great  author  of  the  system  trusted  rather  to  this  gradual  operation 
of  the  principle  than  to  any  immediate  or  direct  precept,  I  think 
Parliament  would  do  more  wisely  rather  to  rely  upon  the  like 
operation  of  the  same  principle,  than  to  put  forward  the  authority 
of  Christianity  in  at  least  a  questionable  shape.     The  name  of 
Christianity  ought  not  to  be  thus  used,  unless  we  are  prepared  to 
act  in  a  much  more  summary  manner  than  the  honourable  gentle- 
man himself  proposes.     If  the  existence  of  slavery  be  repugnant 
to  the  principles  of  the  British  Constitution  and  of  the  Christian 
religion,  how  can  the  honourable  gentleman  himself  consent  to 
pause  even  for  an  instant,  or  to  allow  any  considerations  of  pru- 
dence to  intervene  between  him  and  his  object?  How  can  he  pro- 
pose to  divide  slaves  into  two  classes,  one  of  which  is  to  be  made 
free  directly,  while  he  leaves  the  other  to  the  gradual  extinction 
of  their  state  of  suffering?    But  if,  as  I  contend,  the  British  Con- 
stitution does  not,  in  its  necessary  operation,  go  to  extinguish 
slavery  in  every  colony,  it  is  evident  that  the  honourable  gentle- 
man's proposition  is  not  to  be  understood  in  the  precise  sense 
which  the  honourable  gentleman  gives  to  it;  and  if  the  Christian 
religion  does  not  require  the  instant  and  unqualified  abolition  of 
slavery,  it  is  evident,  I  apprehend,  that  the  honourable  member 
has  mis-stated  in  his  Resolution  the  principle  upon  which  he  him- 
self is  satisfied  to  act.     But  while  I  contend  against  the  literal 
sense  and  too  positive  language  of  the  honourable  gentleman's 
Resolutions,  and  while  I  declare  my  unwillingness  to  adopt  them 
as  the  basis  of  our  proceedings,  let  me  not  be  misunderstood  as 
quarrelling  with  their  intention.      I  admit  as  fully  as  the  honour- 
able gentleman  himself,  that  the  spirit  both  of  the  British  Consti- 
tution and  of  the  Christian  religion  is  in  favour  of  a  gradual  ex- 
termination of  this  unquestioned  evil;  and  I  am  ready  to  proceed 
with  the  honourable  gentleman  to  all  reasonable  and  practicable 
measures  for  that  purpose. 


406  ABOLITION  OF   SLAVERY. 

On  these  principles  I  feel  disposed  to  agree  in  much  that  the 
honourable  gentleman  has  said.  To  many  of  his  measures  of  de- 
tail I  have  not  the  slightest  objection;  without,  however,  admit- 
ting the  solidity  of  all  his  ingenious  illustrations,  or  subscribing  to 
the  correctness  of  all  his  arguments,  I  think  the  House  will  be  of 
my  opinion,  that  at  this  time  of  day  we  must  consider  property 
as  the  creature  of  law;  and  that,  when  law  has  sanctioned  any  par- 
ticular species  of  property,  we  cannot  legislate  in  this  House  as  if 
we  were  legislating  for  a  new  world,  the  surface  of  which  was  to- 
tally clear  from  the  obstruction  of  antecedent  claims  and  obliga- 
tions. If  the  honourable  gentleman  asks  me,  on  the  other  hand, 
whether  I  maintain  the  inviolability  of  property,  so  far  as  to  af- 
firm the  proposition  that  the  children  of  slaves  must  continue  to 
be  slaves  for  ever — I  answer,  frankly,  No.  If,  again,  he  asks  me 
how  I  reconcile  my  notions  of  reverence  for  the  sacredness  of 
property  with  the  degree  of  authority  I  am  prepared  to  exercise 
for  the  attainment  of  my  object;  I  answer,  with  equal  frankness, 
in  accomplishing  a  great  national  object,  in  doing  an  act  of  nation- 
al justice,  I  do  not  think  it  right  to  do  it  at  the  exclusive  expense 
of  any  one  class  of  the  community.  I  am  disposed  to  go  gradu- 
ally to  work,  in  order  to  diminish  both  the  danger  to  be  risked  and 
the  burden  to  be  incurred.  My  opinion  is  also,  and  I  am  prepared 
to  state  it  (the  honourable  gentleman  having  made  his  appeal  to 
the  Government  on  this  question  some  weeks  ago)  as  the  opinion 
of  my  colleagues  as  well  as  my  own — that  in  order  that  the  ob- 
ject which  we  have  all  in  view  may  be  undertaken  safely  and  ef- 
fectually, it  is  better  that  it  should  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive Government. 

With  that  view  I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  preparing  certain 
Resolutions,  which  I  shall  propose  to  substitute  for  those  of  the 
honourable  gentleman.  Between  the  two  sets  of  Resolutions,  the 
substantial  difference,  it  will  be  seen,  is  not  very  essential;  but, 
from  the  difference  of  responsibility  between  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman and  myself,  I  must  of  necessity  lay  down  my  principles 
with  greater  caution  than  he  has  done,  and  proceed  more  coolly 
and  considerately,  so  as  to  avoid  the  liability  to  misrepresentation. 
Not  that  I  wish  to  shrink  from  particulars,  so  far  as  it  may  be  ex- 
pedient to  enter  into  them. 

I  may  say,  then,  that  there  are  two  or  three  points  referred  to 
by  the  honourable  gentleman,  to  which  I  cannot  refuse  my  con- 
currence. For  instance,  he  asks  if  the  present  mode  of  working 
— that  which  is  described  by  the  term,  driving — the  slaves,  by 
means  of  a  cart-whip  in  the  hand  of  one  who  follows  them,  ought 
to  be  allowed?  I  reply,  certainly  not.  But  I  go  further;  I  tell  the 
honourable  gentleman,  that  in  raising  any  class  of  persons  from  a 
servile  to  a  civil  condition,  one  of  the  first  principles  of  improve- 


ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY.  407 

ment  is  in  the  observance  paid  to  the  difference  of  sexes.  I  would 
therefore  abolish,  with  respect  to  females,  the  use  of  the  whip — 
not  only  as  a  stimulant  to  labour  in  the  field — I  would  abolish  it 
altogether  as  an  instrument  of  punishment — thus  saving  the 
weaker  sex  from  indecency  and  degradation.  I  should  further  be 
inclined  to  concur  with  the  honourable  gentleman  as  to  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  the  time  allowed  to  the  negro  for  religious  and  moral 
instruction,  so  long  as  the  cultivation  of  his  provision-ground  and 
his  marketing  occupy  the  greater  part  of  the  Sabbath.  In  this 
point  I  am  anxious  to  introduce  improvement  into  the  present 
system. 

These  are  points  on  which  I  have  no  hesitation  in  agreeing 
with  the  honourable  gentleman;  but  there  are  some  others  requir- 
ing more  mature  consideration  in  practice,  although,  in  principle, 
I  feel  bound  to  say  that  I  agree  with  him.  I  agree  with  him  in 
thinking  that  what  is  now  considered,  by  custom,  and,  in  point 
of  fact,  the  property  of  the  negro,  ought  to  be  secured  to  him  by 
law.  I  agree  with  him  in  thinking  that  it  would  be  beneficial  if 
the  liberty  of  bequest  were  assured  to  him:  perhaps  it  might  be 
made  conditional  upon  marriage.  I  agree  with  him  in  thinking 
that  it  may  perhaps  be  desirable  to  do  something  with  regard  to 
the  admitting  the  evidence  of  negroes;  but  this  I  hold  to  be  a 
much  more  difficult  question,  and  one  requiring  more  thorough 
deliberation  than  I  have  yet  had  time  to  give  to  it.  It  is  a  point 
of  such  extreme  delicacy,  and  demands  so  much  local  and  practi- 
cal knowledge,  that  I  hardly  feel  justified  in  pronouncing  at  this 
moment  any  decided  opinion  upon  it.  Thus  far  I  concur,  that  it 
well  merits  favourable  and  patient  investigation;  and  for  myself, 
and  those  who  act  with  me,  I  can  say  that  we  should  commence 
that  investigation  with  a  leaning  to  the  view  of  the  subject  taken 
by  the  honourable  gentleman.     More  at  present  I  will  not  say. 

I  agree  further  with  the  honourable  gentleman  in  thinking, 
that  (though  great  difficulties  may  be  experienced,  not  from  the 
moral  but  from  the  legal  part  of  the  question)  the  process  of  the 
writ  of  venditioni  exponas,  by  which  the  slaves  are  sold  sepa- 
rately from  the  estates,  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  abolished. 

I  "have  mentioned  these  particulars  as  those  which  have  most 
immediately  attracted  the  attention  of  His  Majesty's  servants.  I 
can  assure  the  honourable  gentleman  and  the  House,  that  they 
have  looked  at  this  subject  with  a  sincere  desire  to  render  all 
possible  assistance  to  the  undertaking  of  the  honourable  gentle- 
man, and  to  co-operate  in  every  practicable  measure  for  amelio- 
rating the  condition  of  the  negroes. 

I  should  ill  discharge  my  duty  this  day,  after  the  warning  of 
the  last  few  weeks,  during  which  this  great  subject  has  been  in 
discussion,  if  I  were  not  to  say,  that,  upon  most  of  the  particulars 


408  ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY. 

which  I  have  mentioned,  if  not  upon  all,  there  is  every  disposi- 
tion among  those  who  may  be  considered  as  representing  the 
colonial  interests  in  this  House  and  in  this  country,  to  give  them 
a  fair,  liberal,  and  candid  consideration. 

The  immediate  question  before  the  House  may  therefore  be 
narrowed  to  this  point — whether  it  is  better  to  enter  upon  this 
question  in  a  temper  of  mind  unembittered  by  the  retrospect  of 
past  evils  and  atrocities,  and  with  a  chance  of  carrying  with  us  a 
degree  of  consent  on  the  part  of  those  most  interested  and  most 
exposed  to  the  hazard  of  injury  from  any  change;  or,  at  the  risk 
of  angry  discussions,  which,  however  innoxious  in  this  House, 
yet,  if  echoed  in  other  places,  might  be  attended  with  the  most 
frightful  consequences,  to  adopt  at  once  the  propositions  of  the 
honourable  gentleman.  The  question  is,  whether,  upon  the  de- 
claration of  principles  now  made  to  the  House,  the  honourable 
gentleman  and  his  friends  will  be  contented  with  the  Resolutions 
which  I  shall  have  the  honour  to  propose,  or  will  press  his  mo- 
tion to  a  division,  at  all  the  hazards  which  I  would  rather  leave  to 
be  imagined  than  describe. 

There  is,  however,  one  point  in  the  honourable  gentleman's 
statement  upon  which  I  certainly  entertain  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion: I  mean,  the  proposal  of  fixing  a  period  at  which  the  children 
of  slaves  shall  be  free.  I  doubt — not  from  any  peculiar  know- 
ledge that  I  have  of  the  subject,  but  upon  the  general  principles 
of  human  nature — whether  the  measure  recommended  by  the 
honourable  gentleman  would  produce  the  degree  of  satisfaction 
which  he  anticipates,  and  whether  it  might  not  produce  feelings 
of  an  opposite  nature.  I  doubt  whether  in  its  operation  it  would 
not  prove  at  once  the  least  efficient  and  the  most  hazardous  mode 
of  attaining  his  own  object.  But  I  throw  out  these  observations 
with  the  same  frankness  and  candour  with  which  I  have  express- 
ed myself  in  approval  of  those  points  of  the  honourable  gentle- 
man's propositions  in  which  I  have  had  the  pleasure  to  concur.  I 
desire  not  to  be  bound  by  these  observations  any  more  than  I  feel 
myself  bound  to  carry  into  effect,  at  all  risks,  and  at  all  hazards, 
those  points  upon  which  I  have  given  a  favourable  opinion.  I 
declare  openly  and  sincerely  my  present  impressions,  formed  af- 
ter the  best  deliberation  that  there  has  been  time  to  give  to  the 
consideration  of  the  subject.  I  trust  and  believe  that  I  have  not 
spoken  positively  upon  any  thing  upon  which  there  is  a  probabil- 
ity of  my  having  hereafter  to  retract  what  I  have  said.  I  speak 
doubtfully  on  some  points,  even  where  the  bent  of  my  opinion  is 
very  strong:  but  the  one  thing  I  am  most  anxious  to  avoid  is,  the 
declaration  of  any  pledge  of  an  abstract  nature;  the  laying  down 
any  principle,  the  eonstruction  of  which  is  to  be  left  to  those 
whose  feelings,  and  prejudices,  and  passions  must  naturally  be 


ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY.  409 

awake  to  these  discussions,  and  who,  when  they  learn,  by  a  de- 
claration of  this  House,  that  "the  continuance  of  slavery,  and  the 
principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  are  incompatible,"  might  im- 
agine they  saw,  in  such  a  declaration,  what,  I  say,  in  abstract 
reasoning  I  have,  I  think,  shown  they  would  be  fairly  entitled  to 
see  in  it — their  own  immediate  and  unqualified  emancipation. 
Lay  down  such  principles,  I  say,  and  those  persons  would  have 
a  right  to  draw  that  conclusion,  and  when  the  House  had  once 
made  such  a  declaration,  the  qualification  would  come  too  late. 

I  am  therefore  peculiarly  desirous  that  the  qualification  should 
be  embodied  in  the  same  vote  which  affirms  the  principle,  and 
that  nothing  should  be  left  to  inference  and  construction:  that 
even  the  hopes  held  out  for  the  future  should  be  qualified  with 
the  doubts,  with  the  delays,  and  with  the  difficulties  to  be  sur- 
mounted before  they  can  possibly  be  realized. 

I  will  now,  with  the  leave  of  the  House,  read  the  resolutions 
which  I  propose  to  submit  to  the  House  for  its  consideration. 

1st.  "  That  it  is  expedient  to  adopt  effectual  and  decisive  mea- 
sures for  ameliorating  the  condition  of  the  slave  population  in  His 
Majesty's  colonies. 

2d.  "  That,  through  a  determined  and  persevering,  but  at  the 
same  time  judicious  and  temperate,  enforcement  of  such  measures, 
this  House  looks  forward  to  a  progressive  improvement  in  the 
character  of  the  slave  population,  such  as  may  prepare  them  for  a 
participation  in  those  civil  rights  and  privileges  which  are  enjoy- 
ed by  other  classes  of  His  Majesty's  subjects. 

3d.  "  That  this  House  is  anxious  for  the  accomplishment  of 
this  purpose,  at  the  earliest  period  that  shall  be  compatible  with 
the  well-being  of  the  slaves  themselves,  with  the  safety  of  the 
colonies,  and  with  a  fair  and  equitable  consideration  of  the  inter- 
ests of  private  property." 

If  the  House  should  be  inclined  to  adopt  these  Resolutions,  I 
shall  then  follow  them  up  with  moving, 

4th.  "  That  the  said  Resolutions  be  laid  before  His  Majesty  by 
such  members  of  this  House  as  are  of  His  Majesty's  most  hon- 
ourable Privy  Council." 

There  now  remains  but  one  point,  which,  after  having  so  fully 
expressed  my  sentiments  to  the  House,  I  am  peculiarly  anxious 
to  impress  upon  its  consideration:  I  mean  the  mode  of  execution, 
the  manner  in  which  the  Executive  Government  would  have  to 
act  in  respect  of  these  Resolutions,  in  the  event  of  their  adoption. 
The  House  is  aware,  that  over  certain  of  the  colonies  in  the  West 
Indies,  the  Crown  exercises  immediate  power,  without  the  inter- 
vention of  any  colonial  legislature.  In  their  case,  the  agency  of 
the  Crown,  of  course,  will  be  more  free  and  unfettered  than  in 
colonies  having  their  own  separate  government.  At  the  same 
54  1. 1. 


410  ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY. 

time,  I  must  declare,  that  we  have  a  right  to  expect  from  the 
colonial  legislatures  a  full  and  fair  co-operation.  And,  being  as 
much  averse  by  habit,  as  I  am  at  this  moment  precluded  by  duty, 
from  mooting  imaginary  points,  and  looking  to  the  solution  of  ex- 
treme though  not  impossible  questions,  I  must  add,  that  any  re- 
sistance which  might  be  manifested  to  the  express  and  declared 
wishes  of  Parliament,  any  resistance,  I  mean,  which  should  par- 
take, not  of  reason,  but  of  contumacy,  would  create  a  case  (a  case, 
however,  which  I  sincerely  trust  will  never  occur)  upon  which 
His  Majesty's  Government  would  not  hesitate  to  come  down  to 
Parliament  for  counsel. 

I  will  not  prolong  a  discussion  (which  it  has  been  my  object  to 
bring  to  a  close)  by  any  general  reflections  further  than  this,  that 
giving  every  credit  as  I  do  to  the  motives  which  have  actuated  the 
honourable  gentleman,  I  am  sure  he  will  feel  that  it  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  a  complete  sympathy  with  his  moral  feelings,  and 
consistent  equally  with  my  duty,  that  I  should  look  at  this  sub- 
ject more  practically,  more  cautiously,  and  more  dispassionately, 
and  (if  the  honourable  gentleman,  will  permit  me  to  say  so  much) 
more  prudently  than  the  honourable  gentleman;  whose  warmth, 
however,  though  I  must  not  imitate,  I  do  not  mean  harshly  to 
blame. 

And  further,  I  would  assure  those  whose  interests  are  involved 
in  this  great  question,  that  whatever  may  be  the  result  of  the 
present  discussion,  I  and  my  colleagues  are  not  more  anxious,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  redeem  the  character  of  the  country,  so  far  as  it 
may  have  suffered  by  the  state  of  slavery  in  the  colonies,  than 
we  think  ourselves  bound,  on  the  other,  to  guard  and  protect  the 
just  interests  of  those  who,  by  no  fault  of  their  own — by  inher- 
itance, by  accident,  by  the  encouragement  of  repeated  acts  of  the 
legislature — find  their  property  vested  in  a  concern  exposed  to 
innumerable  hazards  and  difficulties,  which  do  not  belong  to  prop- 
erty of  another  character;  such  as,  if  they  had  their  option  (as 
their  ancestors  had,)  they  would,  doubtless,  in  most  cases,  have 
preferred.  If  they  have  stood  these  hazards,  if  they  have  en- 
countered these  difficulties — and  have  to  stand  and  encounter 
them  still — we  may  not  be  able  to  secure  them  against  the  conse- 
quences of  such  a  state  of  things;  but  at  least  we  have  no  right 
to  aggravate  the  hazards  or  the  difficulties  which  we  cannot 
relieve. 

The  original  Resolution  was  then  withdrawn ;  the  Speaker  next  put  the 
question  upon  Mr.  Canning's  amendment,  which  was  carried  nem.  con.;  and  it 
was  ordered,  "That  the  Resolutions  (proposed  by  the  right  honourable  Secre- 
tary) should  be  laid  before  His  Majesty,  by  such  members  of  this  House  as  are 
of  His  Majesty's  most  honourable  Privy  Council." 


411 


AMELIORATION  OF  THE  CONDITION 
OF  THE  SLAVE  POPULATION. 

MARCH  16th,  1824. 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning  appeared  at  the  bar  with  papers. 

The  Speaker. — Mr.  Secretary  Canning-,  what  have  you  got  there? 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning. — Papers,  Sir,  by  command  of  His  Majesty. 

The  Speaker. — Please  to  bring  them  up. 

Having-  been  brought  up,  the  Speaker  put  the  question,  "  That  the  title  of 
these  papers  be  now  read;"  which  having  been  carried,  the  clerk  read  the  title. 
"Papers,  in  explanation  of  the  measures  adopted  by  His  Majesty's  Government 
for  the  Amelioration  of  the  Condition  of  the  Slave  Population  in  His  Majesty's 
dominions  in  the  West  Indies." 


Mr.  Secretary  Canning  proceeded  to  address  the  House  as 
follows: — Sir,  I  rise  to  discharge  my  duty  to  the  House,  both  as 
the  mover  of  the  Resolutions  which  were  passed  on  the  16th  of 
May  last  year,  and  as  the  organ,  in  this  House,  of  the  Govern- 
ment which  undertook  to  carry  the  principles  of  those  Resolutions 
into  effect.  With  a  review  of  the  measures  which  have  been 
adopted,  and  of  the  course  which  has  been  pursued  by  His  Ma- 
jesty's Government,  in  obedience  to  those  Resolutions,  it  is  my 
intention  to  combine  another  subject,  kindred  in  its  nature — I 
mean  a  proposition  for  the  more  effectual  abolition  of  the  odious 
trade  which  furnished  to  the  West  Indian  colonies  that  population, 
the  condition  of  which  it  is  now  our  study  to  ameliorate.  I  shall 
postpone,  however,  to  the  conclusion  of  what  I  have  to  state  to 
the  House,  the  latter  subject,  on  which  I  anticipate  an  entire  con- 
currence; and  shall  address  myself,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the 
contents  of  the  papers  which  I  have  just  laid  upon  the  table. 

I  begin,  Sir,  with  requesting  that  the  Resolutions  of  the  16th 
of  May,  1823,  may  be  read. 

The  Clerk  then  read  the  following  Resolutions. 

"  Resolved,  nemine  conlradicente,  "  That  it  is  expedient  to  adopt  effectual 
and  decisive  measures  for  ameliorating  the  condition  of  the  slave  population  in 
His  Majesty's  colonies. 

"  That,  through  a  determined  and  persevering,  but  at  the  same  time  judicious 
and  temperate,  enforcement  of  such  measures,  this  House  looks  forward  to  a 
progressive  improvement  in  the  character  of  the  slave  population,  such  as  may 
prepare  them  for  a  participation  in  those  civil  rights  and  privileges  which  are 
enjoyed  by  other  classes  of  His  Majesty's  subjects. 

"That  this  House  is  anxious  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  purpose  at  the 
earliest  period  that  shall  be  compatible  with  the  well-being  of  the  slaves  them- 
selves, with  the  safety  of  the  colonies,  and  with  a  fair  and  equitable  considera- 
tion of  the  interests  of  private  property." 


41 2  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning  continued. — I  am  desirous,  Sir,  that  the 
House  should  have  present  to  its  mind  the  text  of  these  Resolu- 
tions: because  it  is  by  the  spirit  and  meaning  of  them,  that  the 
conduct  of  His  Majesty's  Government  has  been  guided.  These 
Resolutions,  therefore,  and  not  any  more  sweeping  principle,  or 
any  more  wide-spread  theory,  constitute  the  criterion  by  which 
the  conduct  of  the  Government  is  to  be  judged. 

Undoubtedly,  Sir,  if  there  be  a  question  at  which  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  any  person,  the  most  careless,  to  look  with  indifference, 
but  which  any  man,  who  approaches  it  as  a  subject  of  legislation, 
must  view  with  the  deepest  awe,  it  is  the  question  now  before  us. 
To  speak  of  the  difficulties  which  encompass  it,  as  compared  with 
almost  any  other  question  which  has  ever  occupied  the  attention 
of  Parliament,  would  be  to  draw  but  a  faint  and  feeble  picture  of 
those  difficulties:  they  are,  indeed,  apparent  to  the  most  casual  ob- 
servation; but  he  who  has  to  probe  and  prove  them,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  applying  a  remedy,  finds  them  thickening  around  him  at 
every  step,  and  leaving  him  frequently  nothing  but  a  choice  of 
evils.  Formidable,  however,  as  the  question  is,  in  its  present 
shape,  it  is  undoubtedly  less  so  than  it  was  last  year,  when  first 
propounded  to  the  House.  At  that  time  we  had  to  steer  our 
course  amidst  conflicting  prejudices,  and  opposite  extravagancies 
of  principles;  beset  on  the  one  hand  with  theories,  which  would 
not  suffer  fact  or  establishment  to  stand  in  their  way;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  with  long  established  interests,  and  inveterate  habits 
of  thinking,  sensitively  jealous  of  any  innovation  or  correction. 
These  contradictory  impulses  were  alike  opposed  to  any  practical 
step  that  could  be  taken  to  forward  what  all  admitted  to  be  expe- 
dient— the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  negro  slave. 

The  concurrence  of  the  House  in  the  Resolutions  of  last  year 
has  considerably  narrowed  the  ground  of  dispute.  I  hope  I  shall 
not  be  considered  as  misrepresenting  the  collective  sense  of  Par- 
liament, and  the  general  feeling  of  the  country,  when  I  describe 
that  sense  and  feeling  to  have  been — an  unequivocal  abhorrence 
of  slavery  in  the  abstract:  an  acknowledgment  of  the  almost  hope- 
less difficulty  of  curing  all  its  horrors,  but  a  determination,  never- 
theless, to  look  the  evil  in  the  face,  and  to  endeavour  steadfastly 
to  apply  to  it  such  remedies  as  might  mitigate,  if  they  were  not 
powerful  enough  to  extinguish  it.  But  the  repeated  sanctions  of 
the  legislature,  the  settled  rights  of  inheritance,  and  the  various 
ramifications  of  property  and  of  interest  growing  out  of  them, 
create  impediments  which  the  House  are  not  prepared  to  sweep 
at  once  away,  in  order  that  we  may  have  a  clear  stage  for  the  ex- 
hibition of  theoretical  experiments.  I  hope,  therefore,  I  do  not 
misrepresent  the  sense  of  the  House  of  Commons  when  I  say 
that,  in  passing  the  Resolutions  of  last  year,  there  was  no  general 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  413 

disposition  to  encourage  any  thing  like  a  sudden  emancipation  of 
the  negro;  that  the  House  looks  forward  to  the  termination  of 
slavery  as  the  result  of  a  gradual  and  general  improvement  in  the 
condition  of  the  slaves,  and  not  as  the  consequence  of  an  instan- 
taneous proclamation  of  general  freedom.  I  hope  I  do  not  mis- 
apprehend the  feelings  of  the  House  and  of  the  country  in  taking 
their  intention  to  be,  that  His  Majesty's  Ministers  should  consider 
not  only  what  may  be  right  in  theory,  but  what  will  be  wise  in 
practice;  not  only  how  to  do  the  greatest  possible  good,  but  how 
to  do  it  with  the  least  possible  mischief.  I  hope  I  may  add  that, 
in  the  opinions  of  the  House  and  of  the  country  upon  this  sub- 
ject, there  is  no  mixture  of  hostility  or  of  ill-will  towards  indi- 
viduals whose  lot  is  cast  in  those  distant  regions,  in  which  the 
system  of  slavery  exists;  regions  which,  notwithstanding  their 
separation,  are  subject  to  the  protection  of  the  British  Crown,  and 
entitled  to  the  care  of  the  British  Parliament.  While,  with  a  de- 
liberate purpose,  and  with  a  steady  hand,  we  are  carrying  forward, 
in  its  due  course,  an  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  slave,  I 
hope  and  I  believe,  that  we  act  in  obedience  to  the  feelings  of  the 
House  and  of  the  country  in  taking  especial  care  not  to  drive  the 
plough-share  over  the  rights  and  possessions  of  our  West  Indian 
fellow  subjects. 

These,  Sir,  are  the  principles  on  which  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment have  acted;  and  by  these  principles,  I  say,  they  are  desirous 
to  be  judged.  If  there  are  those  who  think  that  enough  has  not 
been  done,  or  that  more  might  have  been  done  in  the  same  time, 
they  will  now  have  an  opportunity  of  laying  before  the  House 
any  schemes  or  propositions  of  their  own.  But  I  think  I  shall 
be  able  to  show,  that  we  wisely  made  the  Resolutions  of  this 
House  the  rule  of  our  conduct;  and  that,  in  the  mode  and  in  the 
degree  which  was  contemplated  by  the  House,  we  have  done 
much  for  the  welfare  of  the  slave,  with  the  least  possible  hazard 
to  the  interests  of  his  employer. 

Amongst  all  the  embarrassments  attending  the  discussion  of  this 
question,  an  obvious  one  is  this,  that  not  a  phrase  can  be  uttered 
upon  it  by  a  responsible  adviser  of  the  Crown,  which  is  not  liable 
to  be  seized  by  one  or  other  of  the  conflicting  parties,  and  wrest- 
ed to  their  own  purposes.  Now,  Sir,  I  declare  in  the  outset,  that, 
if  I  know  myself,  I  have  considered  Ibis  question  in  all  its  bear- 
ings witli  the  most  scrupulous  impartiality.  If  I  have  any  par- 
tial feeling  at  all  arising  from  the  habits  of  my  early  life,  it  is  one 
strongly  favourable  to  the  cause  of  general  abolition.  From  the 
time  at  which  I  first  was  honoured  with  a  seat  in  this  House,  I 
have  been  an  humble,  but  a  sincere  and  zealous  labourer  in  that 
cause.  But  although  I  have  always  been  friendly  to  the  abolition 
of  the  Slave  Trade,  I,  in  common  as  I  think  with  others,  the  most 

LL* 


414  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF 

zealous  friends  of  that  abolition,  have  always  kept  that  question 
distinct  from  the  one  which  is  now  introduced. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  I  should  be  guilty  of  any  breach  of 
faith,  or  that  I  or  others  who  have  been  equally  favourable  to  the 
abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade,  would  be  obnoxious  to  a  charge  of 
inconsistency  in  now  avowing  the  intention  of  abolishing  slavery. 
But  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  that  the  most  zealous  advocates 
of  the  abolition  of  the  trade,  if  they  entertained  this  intention, 
studiously  concealed  it:  nay,  not  only  concealed,  but  denied  any 
intention  of  aiming  at  an  object  which  was  indeed  represented  by 
their  adversaries  as  the  natural  and  necessary  consequence  of  the 
success  of  abolition.  I  am  sure  that  I  have  myself  frequently  de- 
nied in  debate  that  I  looked  to  emancipation  as  the  necessary  con- 
sequence of  the  abolition.  Am  I,  therefore,  an  enemy  to  the 
gradual  relaxation  of  the  system  of  slavery  ?  God  forbid. — If  I 
am  asked,  whether  I  am  for  the  permanent  existence  of  slavery 
in  our  colonies,  I  say,  No.  But  if  I  am  asked  whether  I  am  fa- 
vourable to  its  immediate  abolition,  I  say,  No.  And,  if  I  am 
asked  which  I  would  prefer,  permanent  slavery,  or  immediate 
abolition,  I  do  not  know  whether,  under  all  the  perplexing  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  I  must  not  say,  I  would  prefer  things  re- 
maining as  they  are:  not,  God  knows!  from  any  love  of  the  exist- 
ing state  of  things,  but  on  account  of  the  tremendous  responsibility 
of  attempting  to  mend  it  by  a  sudden  change.    . 

Happily,  however,  we  are  not  driven  to  either  of  these  ex- 
tremes. Between  the  two,  there  is  an  open,  debatable  ground. 
By  gradual  measures,  producing  gradual  improvement,  not  only 
may  the  individual  slave  be  set  free,  but  his  very  status  may  be 
ultimately  abolished.  Such  has  been  the  progress  of  improve- 
ment in  nations  of  Europe,  that  once  were  most  barbarous,  and 
are  now  most  polished.  But  such  a  consummation  is  not  a  mea- 
sure of  single  enactment  and  of  instant  effect.  Much  is  to  be 
done,  and  much  is  to  be  forborne,  before  we  can  hope  to  arrive  at 
it.  The  co-operation  of  adverse  parties,  and  the  concurrence  of 
various  circumstances  are  requisite  for  its  accomplishment; — and 
after  all,  the  measure  will  eventually  make  its  way  rather  by  the 
light  of  reason  than  by  the  coercion  of  authority. 

The  papers,  Sir,  which  I  have  laid  upon  your  table,  consist,  in 
part  of  reports  received  from  some  of  the  West  India  Colonies, 
and  in  part  of  explanations  of  the  scheme  which  the  Government 
has  devised,  for  carrying  into  operation  the  views  of  the  House 
as  disclosed  in  the  course  of  the  last  session. 

Gentlemen  are  aware  that  the  colonies  are  divided  into  two 
classes;  one  of  which  (the  smaller  number,)  are  governed  by  the 
Crown,  without  the  intervention  of  local  legislative  assemblies; 
the  other  and  larger  class  have  legislative  assemblies  framed  in 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION. 


415 


miniature  after  the  model  of  those  of  the  mother  country.  As 
such  assemblies  are  not  a  little  jealous  of  the  rights  and  privileges, 
by  the  possession  of  which  they  resemble  the  institutions  of  the 
parent  state,  the  colonies  of  the  first  class  are  much  the  more 
easily  manageable.  Experiments  may  therefore  be  tried  with 
greater  facility  in  the  colonies  wholly  governed  by  the  Crown; 
in  Trinidad,  for  instance,  in  St.  Lucie,  or  in  Demerara.  I  name 
these  colonies  in  the  order  in  which  I  conceive  the  existing  state 
of  their  laws  to  be  favourable  to  such  an  experiment.  Trinidad 
formerly  belonged  to  the  Spaniards,  whose  general  slave  laws  are 
incomparably  the  mildest;  St.  Lucie,  to  the  French,  whose  code 
is  in  the  next  degree  favourable  to  the  slave  population;  and  De- 
merara, to  the  Dutch,  whose  treatment  of  their  slaves  is  perhaps 
the  least  favourable  of  the  three;  but  whose  laws  provide,  never- 
theless, some  institutions  for  the  care  and  government  of  the 
slave  population,  which  may  be  employed  and  improved  to  ad- 
vantage. 

With  respect  to  Trinidad,  I  cannot  omit  to  observe,  that,  about 
twenty  years  ago,  I  in  this  House  called  the  attention  of  Govern- 
ment to  that  colony,  the  possession  of  which  was  then  recently 
confirmed  to  us  by  the  peace;  and  submitted  a  motion,  to  the  ef- 
fect that  Trinidad  should  not  be  placed  on  the  same  footing  as 
our  other  colonies,  by  the  grant  of  a  legislative  constitution;  but 
should  be  reserved  under  the  unfettered  dominion  of  the  Crown, 
for  the  purpose  of  experiments  for  the  amelioration  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  slaves.  One  part  of  my  proposition  was,  indeed, 
that  the  importation  of  slaves  into  Trinidad  should  be  entirely 
discontinued.  In  that  object  I  did  not  succeed;  but  I  cannot  for- 
bear to  congratulate  myself  and  the  House,  if  that  motion  of 
mine,  though  not  altogether  successful,  has  had  the  effect  of  keep- 
ing Trinidad  in  a  state,  in  which  an  example  may  be  set  there  by 
the  direction  of  the  executive  power  uncontrollable  by  any  legis- 
lative assembly. 

The  course  intended  to  be  pursued  with  respect  to  the  island 
of  Trinidad,  will  be  shown  by  reference  to  an  Order  in  Council, 
which  is  to  be  found  among  the  papers  laid  on  the  tahle. 

With  the  permission  of  the  House,  I  will  state  to  them  shortly 
the  different  regulations  which  that  Order  in  Council  comprises. 
The  House  will  have  the  goodness  to  compare  what  is  there  done 
with  the  statement  which  I  made  last  session,  of  what  ought  to  be 
done:  and  I  think  it  will  appear  that  none  of  the  points  upon 
which  I  dwelt,  on  that  occasion,  have  been  neglected. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  directed  by  this  Order  in  Council,  that 
the  shocking  and  unseemly  practice  of  the  chastisement  of  fe- 
males by  the  whip,  shall  be  entirely  abolished.  Here,  Sir,  it  is 
but  justice  to  say,  that  the  abolition  of  this  punishment  has  also 


416  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF 

been  recommended  by  the  resolutions  of  the  West  India  body  in 
this  country,  in  the  course  of  last  year.  It  is  also  no  more  than 
justice  to  add,  that  some  of  the  colonies  have  adopted,  some  even 
anticipated,  the  recommendation.  To  raise  the  weaker  sex  in  self- 
respect,  as  well  as  in  the  esteem  of  the  stronger,  is  the  first  step 
from  barbarism  to  civilization. 

The  Order  in  Council  next  abolishes  the  use  of  the  whip,  when 
applied  to  males,  as  a  stimulus  to  labour; — that  wanton  and  de- 
grading use  of  it,  which  places  the  negro  slave  on  a  footing  with 
the  cattle  of  the  field.  The  whip  is  not  to  be  carried  into  the 
field  by  the  driver,  nor  is  it  to  be  borne  as  a  symbol  of  authority. 
It  is  not  in  any  case  to  be  employed  summarily;  but  it  is  not,  as 
to  males,  to  be  laid  aside  as  an  instrument  of  punishment.  The 
House  will  see  that  it  is  quite  a  different  thing,  when  brandished 
as  a  symbol  of  authority,  and  applied  to  the  brute  nerves  of  the 
negro  as  an  incitement  to  labour:  or  when  used  for  the  infliction 
of  a  punishment,  of  which  the  reasoning  faculties  of  the  slave  can 
appreciate  the  justice.  Even  as  to  males,  and  as  an  instrument  of 
punishment,  the  whip  is  to  be  employed  only  under  certain  regu- 
lations, both  with  respect  to  the  amount  of  infliction,  and  to  the 
time.  Delay  of  punishment  for  some  time  after  the  commission 
of  the  offence  is  the  best  security  against  abuse  from  suddenness 
of  passion.  It  is  further  provided  that  witnesses  shall  be  present 
at  the  punishment  of  a  slave;  and  that  all  punishments  shall  be 
accurately  recorded.  These  alterations  at  once  raise  the  mass  of 
the  negro  population  from  the  brute  state  to  that  of  man. 

To  provide  the  means  of  religious  instruction  and  worship  is 
an  object  first  indeed  in  importance,  but  necessarily  subsequent  in 
order  to  those  which  I  have  already  mentioned;  because  it  is  not 
till  the  slave  population  are  raised  in  the  scale  of  nature  that  they 
can  be  capable  of  comprehending,  or  fitted  to  receive,  the  bless- 
ings of  Christianity.  It  is  intended  to  increase  the  amount,  and 
widen  the  basis  of  the  ecclesiastical  establishment  in  the  West 
Indies.  That  establishment  was  founded  for  the  benefit  of  the 
white  population  alone.  It  was  no  more  calculated  for  the  negro 
than  for  the  brute  animal  that  shares  his  toils.  I  am  not  stating 
this  as  a  matter  of  charge,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact.  This  establish- 
ment, though  founded  on  the  principles  of  the  national  church, 
will  not  exclude  other  denominations  of  Christians.  The  author- 
ity and  the  discipline  of  the  national  church  will  be  lodged  in 
bishops,  to  be  resident  in  the  colonies.  With  religious  worship 
will  be  combined  religious  instruction.  It  is  not  my  business  on 
the  present  occasion  to  trouble  the  House  with  details:  but  here, 
again,  I  am  bound  to  do  justice  to  the  West  India  body  in  this 
country,  who  have  declared  their  anxiety  for  the  institution  of 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  417 

• 
religious  instruction,  and  to  more  than  one  of  the  colonies  which 
have  already  acted  upon  that  declaration. 

Sir,  after  religious  worship  and  religious  instruction,  naturally 
come  those  charities  of  life,  which  religion  promotes  and  sancti- 
fies. The  Order  in  Council  enjoins  the  local  Government  of 
Trinidad  to  encourage  marriage.  This  injunction,  I  am  again 
bound  to  say,  and  I  do  so  with  much  satisfaction,  is  in  perfect 
consonance  with  the  recommendation  of  the  persons  most  inter- 
ested in  the  colonies  who  reside  in  this  country,  and  has  also  re- 
ceived a  ready  assent  in  many  of  the  colonies.  In  consideration 
of  marriage,  and  of  the  other  charities  of  life,  which  grow  out  of 
that  connexion,  it  is  provided  by  the  Order  in  Council,  that  in  all 
future  sales,  I  fear  that  I  must  still  use  that  word,  families  shall 
not  be  separated.  In  transferring  slaves  from  one  property  to 
another,  care  will  be  taken  in  future  that  husband  and  wife,  or  re- 
puted husband  and  wife,  and  parent  and  child,  shall  not  be  sever- 
ed from  each  other. 

The  influence  of  family  ties  will  naturally  beget  in  the  mind 
of  the  slave  an  increased  desire  of  property.  The  Order  in  Council 
gives  the  security  of  law  to  that  possession  of  property  which  is 
at  present  respected  by  custom;  and  enjoins  that  measures  shall 
be  taken  to  secure  to  the  slave  the  power  of  bequeathing  it  at  his 
death.  In  aid  of  these  provisions  it  has  been  thought  advisable, 
(however  singular  it  may  appear,  that  a  very  late  invention  of  a 
country  far  advanced  in  civilization,  should  be  supposed  capable 
of  taking  root  in  a  rude  society  like  that  of  the  West  Indies) — it 
has  been  thought  advisable,  I  say,  to  institute  a  bank,  in  which  the 
little  savings  of  slaves  may  be  accumulated.  To  the  right  of  en- 
joyment, and  to  the  power  of  bequest,  secured  by  law,  will  be 
thus  added  the  further  security  derived  from  the  overwatching 
eye  of  public  observation. 

Sir,  when,  by  measures  of  this  kind,  new  ideas  are  infused  into 

the  mind  of  the  negro,  when  he  is  lifted  from  a  level  with  the 

beast  of  the  field,  when  he  has  been  allowed  to  take  his  stand 

amongst  the  human  race — 

"Coelumque  tueri 
Jussus,  et  erectos  ad  sidera  tollere  vultus; — " 

when  he  has  been  taught  to  appreciate  the  endearments  of  family 
connexions,  the  ties  of  kindred,  and  the  blessings  of  property, — 
when  his  nature,  as  well  as  his  condition,  has  been  thus  improved, 
— then  comes  the  fit  opportunity  for  considering  a  subject  which 
is  surrounded  by  many  practical  difficulties — the  admissibility  of 
the  evidence  of  slaves  in  courts  of  justice. 

It  would  be  as  wild  to  say,  that  the  evidence  of  slaves  should 
be  indiscriminately  admitted  in  all  cases,  as  it  would  be  unjust  to 
exclude  it  in  all  cases.     In  this  country,  a  person  in  the  situation 
55 


418  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF 


• 


of  a  slave — I  do  not  mean  politically,  but  morally, — an  infant, 
whose  mind  is  not  sufficiently  expanded  to  be  able  to  estimate  the 
obligation  of  an  oath,  is  not  permitted  to  give  evidence.  It  is 
first  ascertained,  by  examination,  that  the  mind  of  the  infant  is  in 
fact  so  matured,  as  to  be  capable  of  comprehending  that  obligation. 
It  would  be  improper  to  admit  the  evidence  of  blacks  without  a 
similar  guard.  It  is  proposed,  therefore,  that  those  persons  who 
are  to  have  the  care  of  instructing  the  negroes  should  have  power 
to  certify,  not  with  respect  to  a  particular  case  in  which  the  evi- 
dence of  a  slave  may  be  wanted,  but  generally,  that  such  and  such 
slaves  have  made  such  advances  in  civilization  as  to  be  cognizant 
of  the  nature  of  an  oath.  It  is  proposed,  that  a  register  of  such 
slaves  shall  be  kept,  constituting,  as  it  were,  a  privileged  class,  and 
presenting  (what  is  the  spring  of  all  human  action,)  something 
like  an  object  of  ambition  to  their  fellow  slaves.  Under  this  ar- 
rangement the  competency  of  a  slave  to  give  evidence  will  not  be 
judged  by  subjecting  him,  at  the  moment,  to  an  examination, 
probing  his  intellect  to  the  quick,  by  questions  which  he  may  not 
be  able  to  comprehend;  but  it  will  be  known  at  once,  when  any 
individual  slave  is  proposed  as  a  witness  on  a  trial,  whether  he  is 
one  of  that  class  whose  evidence  has  been  certified  to  be  admissi- 
ble. It  is  just  to  state,  that  under  certain  qualifications,  the  evi- 
dence of  slaves  is  already  admitted  in  the  courts  of  justice  ot 
Dominica,  Grenada,  St.  Vincent's,  and  I  believe  St.  Christopher's, 
and  Tobago. 

A  natural  consequence  of  the  determination  to  impart  religious 
instruction  to  the  slaves,  will  be  the  abolition  of  Sunday  markets, 
and  of  Sunday  labour.  The  Order  in  Council  prescribes  this  abo- 
lition, so  soon  as  the  means  of  religious  worship  shall  be  estab- 
lished. It  prescribes  immediately  a  restriction  of  the  Sunday 
market,  within  certain  hours — ultimately,  as  I  have  said,  its  total 
abolition.  In  some  of  the  colonies  this  regulation  is  already  par- 
tially anticipated. 

By  this  process,  and  by  these  degrees,  may  the  slave  be  gradu- 
ally fitted  for  the  last  grand  consummation  of  benefit,  the  power 
of  acquiring  his  freedom.  Heretofore  the  restraints  on  granting 
manumissions  were  extremely  numerous;  but  these  are  now  con- 
siderably reduced;  several  taxes  and  imposts  have  been  removed 
in  different  colonies;  and  in  others  a  like  disposition  has  been 
manifested.  The  Order  in  Council,  however,  goes  beyond  what 
has  been  hitherto  at  all  generally  practised  in  the  colonies.  It  or- 
dains that  a  negro,  who  has  acquired  sufficient  property,  shall,  un- 
der certain  guards  and  regulations,  therein  set  forth,  be  entitled  to 
purchase  his  own  freedom,  the  freedom  of  his  wife,  or  that  of  his 
children. 

I  have  thus,  Sir,  stated  to  the  House  the  provisions  of  the  Or- 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  419 

der  in  Council.  I  know,  that,  with  respect  to  the  last  point, 
namely,  the  purchase  of  freedom,  great  prejudice,  great  dislike, 
great  apprehension,  prevail.  I  am  far  from  saying  that  it  is  not 
a  perplexing  question:  but  the  principle  has  been  admitted  to  a 
certain  extent  in  St.  Kitts,  and  also  in  Trinidad.  No  principle 
can  be  considered  as  impracticable  which  has,  even  in  a  single  in- 
stance, been  voluntarily  admitted  in  the  West  Indies.  It  is  as- 
tonishing how  much  good  might  be  done  by  merely  collecting,  and 
bringing  to  bear  on  one  society,  all  the  beneficial  regulations  which 
are  scattered  through  the  different  colonies.  I  admit,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  the  existence  of  such  beneficial  regulations  affords  an 
answer  to  the  general  declamation  which  has  been  heard  about  the 
total  neglect  and  abandonment  of  the  negroes,  by  West  Indian 
Governments  and  proprietors:  but  I  must,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
tend, that  the  people  of  this  country,  who,  on  account  of  their 
distance  from  the  colonies,  are  compelled  to  look  at  them  through 
the  eyes  of  others,  are  entitled  to  consider  as  good  authority  for 
any  improvement  of  which  they  recommend  the  introduction,  the 
fact,  that  what  they  wish  to  recommend  has  been  by  any  one  West 
Indian  community  already  voluntarily  adopted. 

I  will  now  recapitulate  the  improvements  which  Government 
propose  to  effect  in  the  island  of  Trinidad: — First,  abolition  of 
the  use  of  the  whip  with  regard  to  females  entirely; — discontinu- 
ance of  the  use  of  the  whip  as  applied  to  males  as  a  stimulus  to 
labour; — restrictions  on  the  infliction  on  males  of  punishment  by 
the  whip.  Secondly,  a  religious  establishment  and  religious  in- 
struction;— and,  in  order  to  give  time  for  the  acquirement  of  that 
instruction,  the  abolition  of  the  markets  and  of  slave  labour  on 
the  Sunday.  Thirdly,  encouragement  of  marriage  among  the 
slaves; — the  keeping  together  of  families  of  slaves,  in  sales  or 
transfers  of  estates;  the  securing  to  slaves  the  enjoyment  of  prop- 
erty, and  the  right  to  distribute  it  at  their  death.  Fourthly,  the 
admissibility  of  the  evidence  of  slaves  under  certain  regulations; 
and,  lastly,  a  power  to  the  slave  to  purchase  his  own  freedom,  or 
that  of  his  wife  or  children.  These  are  the  chief  objects  of  the 
Order  in  Council.  Such  is  the  example  which  the  Government 
are  disposed  to  set  in  the  island  of  Trinidad;  and  it  is  hoped  that 
other  colonies  will  follow  an  example  so  set,  without  the  appre- 
hension of  danger. 

I  am  aware  that  whilst  with  respect  to  the  last  point  alluded  to 
in  the  Order  in  Council — the  power  to  be  given  to  slaves  to  pur- 
chase their  own  freedom,  or  that  of  their  wives  or  children — 
Government  has  gone  beyond  the  general  assent  of  the  West  In- 
dia body,  they  have  fallen  very  short  of  the  desires  of  some  ex- 
cellent, and  honourable  persons.  I  know  very  well  that  the  hon- 
ourable genflrman  (Mr.  Buxton)  opposite,  last  year  stated  that  he 


420  ON  THE   CONDITION  OF 

was  disposed  to  go  a  shorter  way  to  work,  and  to  enact  the  eman- 
cipation of  a  particular  generation  of  slaves.  Sir,  in  the  interval 
which  has  elapsed  since  the  debate  of  last  May,  I  have  turned  that 
matter  in  my  mind  with  the  most  painful  anxiety;  and  I  feel 
bound  to  declare,  that  with  the  most  sincere  desire  to  come  to  the 
conclusion  most  favourable  to  the  cause  of  humanity,  I  cannot 
concur  in  the  honourable  member's  proposition.  If  it  were  car- 
ried into  effect,  it  would  in  my  opinion  be  productive  of  the  great- 
est injury,  not  only  to  the  white  population,  but  also  to  the  blacks 
themselves. — [Mr.  Buxton  here  observed  across  the  table,  that  he 
only  proposed  to  emancipate  the  children  of  the  existing  slaves, 
not  the  slaves  themselves.] 

The  honourable  gentleman  is  not  prepared  to  grant  emancipa- 
tion to  the  existing  generation  of  slaves.  Certainly  not.  To  let 
in  the  full  light  of  freedom  on  eyes  scarcely  unsealed,  eyes  from 
which  the  scales  of  bondage  have  not  yet  been  purged  away, 
would  indeed  be  a  perilous  experiment.  But  would  it  not  be 
scarcely  less  unwise  to  hold  out  the  hope  of  emancipation  to  the 
next  generation  of  negroes?  The  slave  would  view  the  freedom 
which  was  thus  placed  in  prospect  before  him,  as  an  infant  views 
any  object  of  desire,  without  the  faculty  of  calculating  the  dis- 
tance which  separates  him  from  it.  To  hold  out  the  prospect  for 
a  future  generation,  might  create  dissatisfaction  in  the  present  race 
of  slaves,  and  render  their  actual  existence  intolerable. 

The  course  which  the  Government  proposes  to  pursue,  is  to  ar- 
rive at  the  liberation  of  the  child  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  parent.  Enable  the  negro  to  purchase  his  own  freedom — en- 
able him  equally  to  purchase  that  of  his  offspring — whenever  he 
shall  have  acquired  the  means  of  doing  so; — and  the  option  be- 
tween himself  and  his  child  being  left  to  his  own  feelings,  how 
probable  is  it  that  those  feelings  may  lead  him  to  prefer  the  liber- 
ation of  his  child! — On  the  contrary,  if  we  were  to  take  the  rising 
generation  of  slaves,  or  those  hereafter  to  be  born,  under  the  spe- 
cial protection  of  the  Legislature,  as  proposed  by  the  honourable 
member,  parents  might  perhaps  be  tempted  to  look  upon  their  off- 
spring, with  feelings,  I  will  not  say  of  envy,  but  with  feelings  far 
other  than  those  of  unmixed  satisfaction,  with  which  a  parent 
ought  to  contemplate  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  his  child. 

Immediate  emancipation  to  the  negro  himself,  I  am  most  happy 
to  hear  the  honourable  gentleman  disclaim.  It  would  indeed  be 
a  fatal  gift.  To  be  safely  enjoyed  it  must  be  gradually  and  dili- 
gently earned.  Hand  facilem  esse  viam  voluit,  is  the  condition 
under  which  it  has  pleased  Divine  Providence  that  all  the  valuable 
objects  of  human  aspiration  should  be  attained.  This  condition 
is  the  legitimate  stimulant  of  laudable  industry,  and  the  best  cor- 
rective of  ambitious  desire.     No  effort  of  an  individual,  and  no 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  421 

enactment  of  a  legislature,  can  relieve  human  nature  from  the 
operation  of  this  condition.  To  attempt  to  shorten  the  road  be- 
tween desire  and  attainment,  is  nine  times  out  of  ten  to  go  astray, 
and  to  miss  the  wished-for  object  altogether.  I  am  fully  persuaded 
that  freedom,  when  acquired  under  the  regulations  prescribed  by 
Government,  will  be  a  more  delightful  as  well  as  a  more  safe  and 
more  stable  possession  than  if  it  were  bestowed  by  a  sudden  ac- 
clamation. 

In  dealing  with  the  negro,  Sir,  we  must  remember  that  we  are 
dealing  with  a  being  possessing  the  form  and  strength  of  a  man, 
but  the  intellect  only  of  a  child.  To  turn  him  loose  in  the  man- 
hood of  his  physical  strength,  in  the  maturity  of  his  physical  pas- 
sions, but  in  the  infancy  of  his  uninstructed  reason,  would  be  to 
raise  up  a  creature  resembling  the  splendid  fiction  of  a  recent  ro- 
mance; the  hero  of  which  constructs  a  human  form,  with  all  the 
corporeal  capabilities  of  man,  and  with  the  thews  and  sinews  of  a 
giant;  but  being  unable  to  impart  to  the  work  of  his  hands  a  per- 
ception of  right  and  wrong,  he  finds  too  late  that  he  has  only 
created  a  more  than  mortal  power  of  doing  mischief,  and  himself 
recoils  from  the  monster  which  he  has  made. 

Such  would  be  the  effect  of  a  sudden  emancipation,  before  the 
negro  was  prepared  for  the  enjoyment  of  well-regulated  liberty. 
I,  therefore,  Sir,  would  proceed  gradually,  because  I  would  pro- 
ceed safely.  I  know  that  the  impulse  of  enthusiasm  would  carry 
us  much  faster  than  I  am  prepared  to  go;  I  know  it  is  objected 
that  all  this  preparation  will  take  time.  Take  time,  Sir!  To  be 
sure  it  will;  to  be  sure  it  should;  to  be  sure  it  must! — Time,  Sir? 
— why, — what  is  it  we  have  to  deal  with  ?  Is  it  with  an  evil  of  yes- 
terday's origin?  with  a  thing  which  is  grown  up  in  our  time; — ofj 
which  we  have  watched  the  growth — measured  the  extent,  and 
which  we  have  ascertained  the  means  of  correcting  or  controlling? 
No;  we  have  to  deal  with  an  evil  which  is  the  growth  of  centu- 
ries, and  of  tens  of  centuries;  which  is  almost  coeval  with  the 
deluge;  which  has  existed  under  different  modifications  since  man 
was  man.  Do  gentlemen,  in  their  passion  for  legislation,  think 
that  after  only  thirty  years'  discussion,  they  can  now  at  once 
manage  as  they  will,  the  most  unmanageable,  perhaps,  of  all  sub- 
jects? or,  do  we  forget,  Sir,  that  in  fact  not  more  than  thirty  years 
have  elapsed  since  we  first  presumed  to  approach  even  the  out- 
works of  this  great  question  ! — Do  we,  in  the  ardour  of  our  nas- 
cent reformation,  forget  that  during  the  ages  for  which  this  sys- 
tem has  existed,  no  preceding  generation  of  legislators  has  ven- 
tured to  touch  it  with  a  reforming  hand?  and  have  we  the  vanity 
to  flatter  ourselves  that  we  can  annihilate  it  at  a  blow? — No, 
Sir,  no: — we  must  be  contented  to  proceed,  as  I  have  already 
said,  gradually  and  cautiously;  and  what  I  have  now  laid  before 

MM 


422  ON  THE  CONDITION   OF 

the  House,  is,  I  flatter  myself,  sufficient  for  the  first  step  in  a  pro- 
cess which  will  widen,  and  strengthen  as  it  goes. 

It  is  the  intention  of  the  Government,  Sir,  after  having  estab- 
lished the  system  which  I  have  explained,  in  Trinidad,  to  extend 
it  to  the  other  colonies  in  which  the  power  of  the  Crown  is  un- 
shackled. The  same  instructions  which  have  been  sent  to  Trini- 
dad, are  to  be  forwarded  to  St.  Lucie;  the  only  difference  will  be, 
that,  as  in  Trinidad  they  are  grafted  on  the  Spanish  law,  in  St. 
Lucie  the  machinery  of  the  French  law  will  be  employed  for  car- 
rying them  into  operation.  It  is  intended  also  to  extend  the  ex- 
periment to  Demerara  and  its  dependencies;  where,  indeed,  it 
would  have  been  first  tried,  but  for  the  intervention  of  the  unfor- 
tunate occurrences  which  have  lately  taken  place  in  that  colony. 

I  shall  be  asked  what  is  likely  to  be  the  effect  produced  by  the 
adoption  of  these  measures  in  Trinidad,  St.  Lucie,  and  Demerara, 
upon  the  other  West  Indian  colonies  which  have  legislatures  of 
their  own,  and  by  many  of  which  the  communication  of  the  wishes 
and  intentions  of  Parliament  has  certainly  been  received  with  a 
spirit  any  thing  but  conciliatory.  I  shall  be  asked  what  are  the 
intentions  of  the  Government,  as  to  those  colonies;  by  what  means 
it  is  intended  to  bring  them  to  reason,  and  to  induce  them  to  adopt 
the  views  and  second  the  determinations  of  Parliament? 

Sir,  if  it  were  possible  for  me,  on  a  question  involving  so  many 
important  interests,  so  many  perplexing  considerations,  and  so 
many  contingencies  requiring  to  be  calculated  with  the  utmost 
coolness  and  deliberation;  if  it  were  possible  to  indulge,  on  such 
an  occasion,  any  personal  feeling  of  irritation  at  the  manner  in 
which  His  Majesty's  Government,  and  among  them,  myself,  as  a 
member  of  that  Government,  have  been  treated  by  some  of  the 
West  India  Assemblies,  I  might  be  tempted  to  resort  to  measures 
of  reprehension  and  coercion.  But,  Sir,  I  can  assure  the  House 
that  I  am  actuated  by  no  such  feeling;  and  that  I  am  not  inclined 
to  resort  to  any  such  measures.  On  the  contrary,  I  should  con- 
sider it  most  unwise  and  most  unbecoming  to  do  so.  In  the  ebul- 
lition of  anger  (for  I  will  call  it  nothing  more)  observable  in  the 
proceedings  of  some  of  the  legislative  assemblies,  I  see  much  to 
blame,  indeed — much  to  excuse — something  to  pity,  but  nothing 
to  punish.  Nothing  I  am  aware  would  be  easier  than  to  put  an 
end  to  the  dispute  at  once,  by  overwhelming  power;  but  I  see  no 
necessity,  and  I  am  sure  I  feel  no  inclination,  for  such  a  proceed- 
ing. If,  indeed,  there  were  any  thing  like  an  equality  of  strength 
between  the  legislature  of  this  mighty  kingdom,  and  the  colonial 
assemblies,  as  was  the  case  in  a  struggle  in  which  this  country  was 
heretofore  engaged  with  her  colonies,  then  might  Parliament, 
roused  by  insult  as  well  as  opposition  to  a  feeling  of  exasperated 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  423 

dignity,  denounce  vengeance  against  Jamaica.     But  as  I  do  not 
mean  the  thing,  I  will  not  use  the  language. 

There  are  three  possible  modes  in  which  Parliament  might  deal 
with  the  people  of  Jamaica:  first,  as  I  have  said,  it  might  crush 
them  by  the  application  of  direct  force; — secondly,  it  might  harass 
them  by  fiscal  regulations,  and  enactments  restraining  their  navi- 
gation; and,  thirdly,  it  may  pursue  the  slow  and  silent  course  of 
temperate,  but  authoritative  admonition.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  if 
I  am  asked  which  course  I  would  advise,  I  am  for  first  trying  that 
which  I  have  last  mentioned;  I  trust  we  shall  never  be  driven  to 
the  second;  and  with  respect  to  the  first,  I  will  only  now  say  that 
no  feeling  of  wounded  pride,  no  motive  of  questionable  expedi- 
ency, nothing  short  of  real  and  demonstrable  necessity,  shall  in- 
duce me  to  moot  the  awful  question  of  the  transcendental  power 
of  Parliament  over  every  dependency  of  the  British  Crown.  That 
transcendental  power  is  an  arcanum  of  empire,  which  ought  to  be 
kept  back  within  the  penetralia  of  the  constitution.  It  exists,  but  it 
should  be  veiled.  It  should  not  be  produced  upon  trifling  occasions, 
or  in  cases  of  petty  refractoriness  and  temporary  misconduct.  It 
should  be  brought  forward  only  in  the  utmost  extremity  of  the 
state,  where  other  remedies  have  failed  to  stay  the  raging  of  some 
moral  or  political  pestilence.  Undoubtedly,  Sir,  it  would  be  easy  to 
select  passages  from  the  Jamaica  Gazettes,  which,  according  to  all 
legitimate  inferences  of  reasoning,  ought  to  put  Parliament  in  a 
towering  passion:  but  I  must  confess,  that  upon  a  moment's  reflec- 
tion, I  find  my  indignation  restrained  by  consideration  of  the  povv- 
erlessness  of  the  body  from  whom  the  offence  comes,  compared 
with  the  omnipotence  of  that  to  which  it  is  offered.  The  con- 
sciousness of  superior  strength  disarms  the  spirit  of  resentment. 
I  could  revenge,  but  I  would  much  rather  reclaim.  I  prefer  that 
moral  self-restraint  so  beautifully  expressed  by  the  poet,  when  he 
represents  Neptune  as  allaying  the  wild  waters,  instead  of  re- 
buking the  winds  which  had  put  them  in  a  roar — 

"  Quos  ego — sed  motos  prtestat  componere  fluctus." 

If  there  be  any  gentleman  in  the  Jamaica  House  of  Assembly, 
who  meditates  the  acquisition  of  fame  and  popularity  by  opposing 
what  he  pleases  to  call  the  encroachments  of  the  mother  country, 
and  who  is  preparing  himself  for  his  contemplated  career,  by 
conning  over  the  speeches  of  Cushing  and  Franklin,  we  shall  act 
most  judiciously,  by  taking  from  him  all  lofty  grounds  of  quarrel; 
by  disappointing  his  patriotic  ardour  of  contentious  topics  of  in- 
flammation; and  by  leaving  him  to  found  his  insurrection,  if  in- 
surrection he  will  have,  on  an  abstract  admiration  of  the  cart- 
whip,  and  on  a  resolute  claim  of  his  free-born  right  to  use  that 
instrument  at  his  pleasure. 


424  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF 

I  am  convinced,  Sir,  that  unless  Parliament  should  injudiciously 
supply  fuel  to  the  flame,  this  unprovoked  ardour  will  gradually 
expire.  When  the  patriots  discover  that  no  parliamentary  com- 
missioner is  coming  out  to  control  them,  that  no  army  is  on  its 
way  to  subdue  them,  no  navy  to  blockade  their  ports,  they  will 
have  leisure  and  temper  to  reflect  calmly  on  what  has  passed;  and 
finding  no  just  cause  of  offence  and  no  plea  for  crying  out  against 
oppression,  they  will,  I  doubt  not,  at  no  distant  time,  be  con- 
vinced of  the  reasonableness  of  the  measures  recommended  to 
their  adoption,  and  will  prepare  themselves  to  act,  by  their  own 
power  and  discretion,  consonantly  to  the  wishes  of  this  House. 

Indeed,  Sir,  situated  as  Jamaica  is  between  warnings  and  ex- 
amples, having  St.  Domingo  on  the  one  side,  and  Columbia  on 
the  other,  with  Trinidad,  St.  Lucie,  and  Demerara  almost  in  her 
view,  I  cannot  believe  that  she  will  long  hold  out  in  her  resist- 
ance. I  cannot  believe  that  much  time  will  elapse  before  we  shall 
learn  that  the  planter  of  Jamaica  is  anxiously  employed  in  emu- 
lating the  endeavours  of  the  Government  in  Trinidad,  to  improve 
the  condition  of  his  negroes. 

In  the  full  assurance  that  this  will  be  the  case,  so  far  from  en- 
tertaining any  hostile  feeling  towards  those  who  have  been  so  lib- 
eral of  their  comments  upon  us,  the  Government  is  most  anxious 
that  Jamaica  should  participate  to  the  fullest  extent  in  all  the  ad- 
vantages likely  to  result  from  the  proposed  regulations.  One  of 
the  episcopal  establishments  is  intended  to  be  fixed  at  Jamaica; 
the  other  in  the  Leeward  Islands. 

For  the  support  of  these  establishments  it  will  not  be  neces- 
sary, for  a  time  at  least,  that  any  demand  should  be  made  on  the 
finances  of  the  islands.     I  will  not  now  enter  into  any  detailed 
calculations  upon  this  head,  which  do  not  indeed  come  properly 
within  this  general  view  of  the  question;  but  I  will  merely  ex- 
press my  hope,  that  for  the  first  two  years  the  expenses  of  these 
episcopal  establishments  will  not  exceed  the  amount  of  the  inter- 
est of  that  sum  which   my  right  honourable  friend  has  proposed 
to  appropriate   to   the  erection  of  new  churches  in  this  country. 
Two  years  will  probably  elapse  before  any  portion  of  that  fund 
will  be  required  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  ultimately  in- 
tended.    There  is  another  fund  also  which  may  hereafter,  when 
gradually  relieved  of  the  burdens  which  now  exist  upon  it,  be 
applied  to  the  purposes  of  the  proposed  establishment,  I  mean  the 
four  and  a  half  per  cent,  or  Leeward  Island's  fund.     I  am  author- 
ized to  state  the  disposition  of  the  Crown  to  refrain  from  grant- 
ing any  further  pensions  out  of  this  fund,  until  the  burdens  now 
upon  it  shall  have  been  so  far  reduced,  as  to  set  free  a  portion  of 
it,  applicable  to  the  West  Indian  episcopal  establishment. 

Sir,  I  have  now  nearly  done.     Being  desirous    of  putting  the 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  425 

House  generally  in  possession  of  the  principle  and  plan  upon 
which  the  Government  proposes  to  act,  without  exciting  angry 
feelings  on  any  side,  I  shall  carefully  and  studiously  abstain  from 
all  unnecessary  reflections  upon  this  important  and  painful  sub- 
ject; important  from  the  extent  of  the  interests  which  it  em- 
braces, and  painful,  inasmuch  as  it  involves  the  consideration  of 
the  lot  of  so  large  a  portion  of  our  fellow- creatures,  whose  pres- 
ent state  in  society  cannot  be  contemplated  without  the  deepest 
feelings  of  commiseration.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  is  a 
question  full  of  hope,  seeing  that  the  attention  of  Parliament 
and  of  the  country  has  been  directed  to  the  subject;  and  seeing 
that  there  exists  on  all  hands  a  wish  and  determination  to  apply 
remedies  to  the  evil,  not  indeed  with  an  indiscreet  haste,  which 
would  rather  injure  than  benefit  those  whose  welfare  we  are  anx- 
ious to  promote,  but  with  a  temperate  and  well-considered  zeal. 

As  one  of  the  best  modes  of  forwarding  our  object,  I  would 
most  earnestly  conjure  those  honourable  gentlemen  both  on  one 
side  of  the  House  and  the  other,  who  may  take  part  in  this  dis- 
cussion, whether  from  motives  of  personal  interest,  or  from  mo- 
tives still  more  powerful  than  any  considerations  of  interest,  to 
refrain  from  exaggerated  statements,  from  highly-coloured  pic- 
tures of  individual  suffering,  which  can  have  no  other  effect  than 
to  exasperate  discussion  into  animosity.  I  entreat  gentlemen  to 
reflect  that  any  conflict  on  this  subject  in  this  House  will  not  be 
merely  a  war  of  words.  If  this  night's  debate  should  be  angry 
and  intemperate,  the  inferences  drawn  from  it  elsewhere  will  be 
fatal  to  the  peace  of  the  colonies.  False  hopes  will  be  excited 
among  the  slaves;  a  spirit  of  resistance  will  be  engendered  among 
the  planters;  improvement  in  the  lot  of  the  negro  will  thus  be 
placed  at  a  greater  distance  than  ever;  and  the  lives  and  proper- 
ties of  the  white  population  of  the  colonies  will  be  placed  in 
hazard  and  jeopardy. 

I  entreat  honourable  gentlemen  particularly  to  bear  in  mind, 
that  in  the  discussion  of  this  question  in  this  place,  we  have,  as  if 
by  tacit  agreement,  spoken  generally  of  slavery  and  of  a  slave 
population,  without  adverting  to  one  essential  characteristic, 
which  distinguishes  the  slavery  of  the  West  Indies  from  all 
others;  I  mean  that  physical  alienation  which  arises  from  the  in- 
delible difference  of  colour.  We  who  live  not  on  the  spot  can 
conceive  but  a  faint  idea  of  the  nature  of  this  alienation.  But  let 
it  not  be  forgotten  that  our  debates  are  read  with  avidity  in  the 
colonies  by  the  different  classes,  in  which  this  principle  is  work- 
ing with  full  force. 

No  gentleman  comes  into  this  House  to  take  part  in  this  ques- 
tion, who  is  not  in  some  way  or  other,  more  or  less,  connected 
with  individuals  whose  all  is  involved  in  the  discussion.  Let  us 
56  mm  • 


426  ON  THE   CONDITION  OF 

recollect  what  prodigious  ruin  one  unguarded  expression,  dropt 
in  the  heat  of  debate,  may  occasion  to  those  whom  we  would  not 
willingly  injure; — while  it  is  at  the  same  time  clear  that  the  most 
ardent  and  enthusiastic  eloquence  cannot  hasten  the  enjoyment 
of  freedom  by  those  who  are  not  yet  in  a  fit  state  to  receive  the 
boon. 

If  we  are  to  do  good  (which  I  earnestly  hope  and  sincerely 
believe  we  may,)  it  is  not  to  be  done  by  sudden  and  violent  mea- 
sures;— but  by  efforts  of  a  patient  and  comparatively  tame  char- 
acter; by  measures  slow  in  their  progress,  but  steady  and  sure  in 
their  operation;  measures  which  must  be  carried  into  effect  not 
by  a  few  individuals  of  rare  talents,  and  conspicuous  zeal;  but  by 
the  great  body  of  those  whom  the  advocates  of  the  negro  distrust 
and  seem  disposed  to  put  aside. 

Yes,  Sir,  if  the  condition  of  the  slave  is  to  be  improved,  that 
improvement  must  be  introduced  through  the  medium  of  his  mas- 
ter. The  masters  are  the  instruments  through  whom,  and  by 
whom,  you  must  act  upon  the  slave  population: — and  if  by  any 
proceedings  of  ours  we  shall  unhappily  place  between  the  slave 
and  his  master  the  barrier  of  insurmountable  hostility,  we  shall 
at  once  put  an  end  to  the  best  chance  of  emancipation  or  even  of 
amendment.  Instead  of  diffusing  gradually  over  those  dark  re- 
gions a  pure  and  salutary  light,  we  may  at  once  kindle  a  flame 
only  to  be  quenched  in  blood. 

I  am  not  aware,  Sir,  that  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  detain  the 
House  by  entering  more  into  detail,  nor  will  I  be  induced  to  sin 
against  my  own  precept  by  diverging  into  general  observations. 
I  therefore  here  take  my  leave  of  the  existing  state  of  the  negro 
population. 

Connected,  however,  with  that  state  from  which  we  are  endea- 
vouring gradually  to  rescue  so  large  a  portion  of  our  fellow-crea- 
tures, is,  (as  I  have  stated  at  the  outset  of  my  speech,)  the  consid- 
eration of  the  inhuman  traffic  by  which  they  were  brought  into 
their  present  condition;  and  for  the  total  abolition  of  which,  so  far 
as  regards  this  country  and  her  colonies,  the  friends  of  humanity 
are  indebted  to  the  exertions  of  my  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Wil- 
berforce)  opposite.  I  am  convinced  that  the  Slave  Trade  is  en- 
tirely and  effectually  abolished  with  respect  to  our  colonies.  I 
know  that  other  persons  entertain  a  different  opinion;  but  after 
the  most  anxious  inquiries  on  the  subject,  I  feel  perfectly  confi- 
dent that  with  respect  to  the  British  West  India  Islands,  the  pro- 
hibition against  the  introduction  of  slaves  is  sacredly  observed. 
It  is,  nevertheless,  true  that  the  introduction  of  slaves  in  foreign 
colonies  continues  to  an  enormous  extent.  All  the  efforts  of  this 
country  to  procure  the  active  co-operation  of  other  powers  to  put 
down  the  traffic  in  slaves  has  been  ineffectual.     Among  the  plans 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  427 

which  have  been  suggested  for  that  purpose,  it  has  been  frequently- 
suggested  that  all  persons  guilty  of  slave-trading  should  be  ren- 
dered obnoxious  to  capture,  not  only  by  the  vessels  of  their  own 
country,  but  by  those  of  every  other  power, — in  other  words, 
that  the  Slave  Trade  should  be  declared  piracy.  A  good  deal  of 
misapprehension,  however,  prevails  upon  this  point. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some  persons  that  a  Congress  of  Sov- 
ereigns— the  Congress  of  Verona,  for  instance — might  have  taken 
upon  itself  to  declare  slave-trading  a  piratical  offence,  and  thereby 
to  make  the  individuals  engaged  in  it  amenable  to  an  universal 
international  law.  This  is  a  complete  mistake.  England  must 
surely  be  the  last  country  in  the  world  to  admit  that  any  con- 
gress of  sovereigns  could  constitute  a  law,  universal  in  its  opera- 
tion on  states  not  party  to  its  enactment.  The  only  way  in  which 
this  desirable  object  could  be  obtained  would  be,  that  every  na- 
tion should  for  itself  declare  slave-trading  to  be  a  piratical  offence 
in  its  own  subjects.  We  have  in  the  law  of  England  many  statu- 
table piracies.  But,  supposing  such  a  law  passed  here  in  respect 
to  the  Slave  Trade,  the  effect  upon  the  foreign  Slave  Trade  would 
be  nothing,  unless  we  could  persuade  other  nations  each  to  pass 
the  like  law,  and  all  to  co-operate  for  its  general  execution.  Now, 
we  have  more  than  once  proposed  both  to  the  Government  of 
France  and  to  that  of  the  United  States,  to  give  reciprocally  by 
treaty,  a  right  of  mutual  visit  and  search  in  all  cases  of  suspected 
slave-trading.  When  it  is  considei'ed  how  many  delicate  points 
of  national  pride,  of  maritime  law,  and  maritime  right,  are  touch- 
ed by  such  a  proposition,  the  House  will  not  be  surprised  that  it 
has  been  by  no  means  cordially  received.  By  France  it  has  been 
more  than  once  rejected  altogether.  But  it  is  with  no  small  feel- 
ing of  gratification  that  I  am  now  enabled  to  state  to  the  House 
that  many  days  have  not  elapsed  since  a  treaty  was  signed  on  the 
part  of  this  country  by  my  right  honourable  friend  near  me,  the 
President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  a  right  honourable  relation 
of  mine,  His  Majesty's  Minister  to  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  by  the  American  Minister 
in  London,  by  which  treaty  Great  Britain  and  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  concede  mutually  to  each  other,  under  cer- 
tain regulations  and  restrictions,  this  long-sought  right  of  visit. 

This  treaty  authorizes  the  men-of-war  of  either  nation  to  de- 
tain the  merchant  vessels  of  the  other,  if  suspected  of  being  en- 
gaged  in  slave-trading;  provided,  that  both  countries  shall  have 
previously  adopted  the  same  law  respecting  that  crime,  by  con- 
stituting it  by  law  a  piracy.  The  House  is  probably  aware  that 
the  Legislature  of  the  United  States  has  already  passed  a  law  to 
this  effect.  It.  is  my  intention  to-night  to  propose,  with  the  leave 
of  the  House,  to  bring  in  :i  bill  for  the  like  purpose.    Should  that 


428  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF 

bill  pass,  the  navies  of  Great  Britain  and  of  the  United  States 
will  henceforth  act  in  co-operation,  to  extirpate,  so  far  as  regards 
their  two  countries,  this  abominable  traffic  altogether. 

The  present  is  not  the  most  convenient  time  for  entering  into 
a  detail  of  the  provisions  of  the  treaty;  but  those  who  recollect 
the  difficulties  which  have  hitherto  obstructed  the  completion  of 
any  such  agreement,  must  rejoice  to  find  that  all  these  difficulties 
have  been  adjusted.  There  are,  on  both  sides,  points  of  dignity 
reserved:  and  care  has  been  taken  to  preserve  the  general  bound- 
aries of  maritime  law:  but  upon  the  question  of  the  Slave  Trade, 
the  powers  reciprocally  given  are  ample,  and  I  trust  will  be  found 
effectual.  Each  country  reserves  the  administration  of  its  own 
national  law  for  the  punishment  of  its  own  subjects:  but  the  right 
of  capture  is  common  to  both.  For  instance,  if  an  American 
man-of-war  should  capture  a  British  slave  trader,  (and  God  forbid 
she  should  not,  if  such  an  one  could  be  found,)  or,  vice  versa,  a 
British  man-of-war  an  American  slave  trader, — the  captured  ves- 
sel is  to  be  remitted  to  the  nearest  ship-of-war  of  its  own  nation, 
or  to  its  nearest  native  maritime  port,  for  adjudication: — each 
country  thus  aiding  the  other  in  detecting  the  crime;  but  each 
judging  its  own  subjects.  I  trust  that  the  realization  of  this  ar- 
rangement between  the  contracting  parties  will  not  be  the  limit 
of  its  beneficial  operation:  for  when  the  two  greatest  maritime 
nations  ;n  the  world, — the  two  nations,  I  mean,  who,  by  the  ex- 
tent of  their  commercial  navies,  expose  the  widest  surface  to  the 
operation  of  this  new  law, — so  far  compromise  their  maritime 
pride,  and  subdue  their  deeply-rooted  prejudices,  as  to  submit 
themselves  to  each  other's  vigilance  and  inquiry;  it  surely  may 
be  hoped  that  in  any  future  discussions  for  the  universal  abolition 
of  the  Slave  Trade,  the  joint  representations  of  Great  Britain  and 
America  may  be  employed  with  peculiar  force,  and  grace,  and 
consistency,  to  induce  other  nations  to  lay  aside  all  feelings  of  re- 
pugnance which  may  stand  in  the  way  of  their  accession  to  so 
truly  virtuous  and  beneficent  a  confederacy. 

Sir,  it  only  remains  for  me  to  thank  the  House  for  the  patient 
indulgence  with  which  they  have  listened  to  me;  and  to  conclude 
with  moving  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the  more  effectual 
suppression  of  the  African  Slave  Trade. 


A  very  protracted  discussion  took  place  on  the  motion  of  the  right  honoura- 
ble gentleman.  To  questions  soliciting  information  from  some  honourable 
members, — and  to  objections  to  the  course  pursued  by  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, from  others, — Mr.  Canning  replied : — 

Mr.  Speaker, — Had   I   not  been  called   upon  in  so  direct  a 
manner  by  some  honourable  gentlemen  in  the  course  of  this  de- 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION. 


429 


bate,  it  was  not  my  intention  to  have  offered  myself  again  to 
your  notice:  and  in  addressing  you  at  this  late  hour,  Sir,  and  af- 
ter so  full  a  discussion,  I  am  sure  it  will  be  agreeable  to  the 
House  to  hear  that  it  is  by  no  means  my  intention  to  trespass 
longer  upon  its  time  than  may  be  necessary  for  replying  to  the 
questions  which  have  been  put  to  me. 

And  first,  Sir,  in  reply  to  the  question  of  the  honourable  mem- 
ber for  South wark  (Sir  R.  Wilson.)  The  honourable  gentleman 
wishes  to  know  whether  the  Order  in  Council  forwarded  to  Trini- 
dad, is  to  be  communicated  to  the  other  colonies  which  he  has 
named?  Communications  have  been  made  to  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  and  other  eastern  settlements,  but  of  the  result  of  those 
communications  I  am  yet  without  information.  With  regard  to 
the  other  question  respecting  the  use  of  the  whip,  and  the  num- 
ber of  lashes  which  a  master  is  to  be  authorised  to  inflict  on  his 
slave  as  punishment  for  an  offence;  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying 
that  my  construction  of  the  words  "  at  any  time,"  which  are  to 
be  found  in  that  order,  is,  for  any  one  offence. 

I  come  next,  Sir,  to  the  more  important  questions  put  to  me  by 
my  honourable  friend  the  member  for  Bramber,  and  by  the  hon- 
ourable member  for  Taunton.  I  confess  it  appears  to  me  incor- 
rect to  call  the  Order  in  Council  an  experiment.  The  proper 
term  to  apply  to  it,  is  an  example;  and  I  trust,  Sir,  it  is  an  ex- 
ample which  the  rest  of  the  colonies  will  feel  it  both  their  inter- 
est and  their  duty  to  follow,  without  any  interference  on  the  part 
of  the  Government  at  home.  With  respect  to  such  interference, 
however,  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  reserving  to  myself  the  right 
of  acting  as  circumstances  may  require.  I  have  already  described 
the  different  kinds  and  degrees  of  interference  which  might  be 
employed  towards  the  colonial  legislatures,  should  such  a  course 
become  necessary;  but  I  must  repeat  that  I  deprecate  any  such 
interference,  except  by  way  of  admonition  and  advice,  unless  as  a 
last  resource,  or  in  an  urgent  extremity.  The  power  exists:  — 
but  any  practical  application  of  it  ought  to  be  most  cautiously 
avoided,  until  all  other  means  shall  have  been  tried  and  found 
unavailing. 

The  honourable  member  for  Taunton,  (Mr.  Baring,)  has  charged 
the  Government  with  delay,  with  want  of  decision,  with  agitating 
this  great  question,  session  after  session,  and  still  without  any  in- 
telligible determination;  with  being,  in  short,  like  the  honourable 
gentleman  himself,  as  much  on  the  one  side  as  the  other.  This 
is  the  honourable  gentleman's  statement;  now  let  us  look  at  the 
facts.  In  the  month  of  May,  1823,  this  question  was  moved  for 
the  first  time  by  the  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Buxton)  oppo- 
site. The  Government  then  also,  for  the  first  time,  declared  its 
intention   to   take   the   question   into   its  own  hands.     Only  nine 


430  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF 

short  months  have  passed  over  since  the  question  in  its  present 
shape  was  first  agitated;  and  the  Government  now  comes  forward, 
and  through  me,  its  humhle  instrument,  proposes  a  measure, 
which,  whatever  other  gentlemen  may  think  of  it,  seems  to  be 
so  satisfactory  to  the  honourable  member  for  Taunton,  that  he 
carries  his  approbation  of  it  even  beyond  those  who  propose  it; 
he  expects  even  more  from  it  than  the  Government  itself.  Yet 
after  having  bestowed  this  extraordinary  share  of  approbation  on 
the  measure  proposed  by  the  Government,  the  honourable  gentle- 
man assumes  the  lecturer's  chair,  and  proceeds  to  censure  us  alike 
for  what  we  have  done,  and  what  we  have  omitted,  and  to  tell  us 
what  we  ought  and  ought  not  to  do.  The  honourable  gentleman 
on  this,  as  on  some  other  occasions,  reminds  me,  Sir,  of  certain 
members  of  this  House,  who  were  so  well  described  by  Mr. 
Burke  forty  years  ago:  "There  are  (said  that  eloquent  statesman) 
a  certain  class  of  persons  who  when  they  rise  in  their  places,  no 
man  living  can  divine,  from  any  known  adherence  to  parties,  to 
opinions,  or  to  principles,  from  any  order  or  system  in  their  poli- 
tics, or  from  any  sequel  or  connexion  in  their  ideas,  what  part 
they  are  going  to  take  in  any  debate.  It  is  astonishing  how  much 
this  uncertainty,  especially  at  critical  times,  calls  the  attention  of 
all  parties  on  such  men.  All  eyes  are  fixed  on  them;  all  ears  are 
open  to  hear  them;  each  party  gapes  and  looks  alternately  for 
their  vote  almost  to  the  end  of  their  speeches.  Whilst  the  House 
hangs  in  this  uncertainty — now  the  hear,  hears/  rise  from  this 
side — now  they  are  re-bellowed  from  the  other,  and  that  party  to 
whom  they  at  length  fall,  from  their  tremulous  and  dancing  bal- 
ance, always  receive  them  in  a  tempest  of  applause."  And  now, 
Sir,  just  as  forty  years  ago,  there  are  gentlemen  who  get  up  late 
in  the  night,  when  the  debate  has  reached  a  certain  stage,  and 
make  a  speech  so  nicely  balanced  this  way,  and  that  way,  a  piece 
of  blame  here,  a  piece  of  praise  there,  with  censure  and  applause 
so  beautifully  blended  and  contrasted,  that  no  man  can  venture  to 
pronounce  which  ingredient  predominates.  To  such  gentlemen 
nothing  certainly  could  be  so  disagreeable  as  to  find  the  Govern- 
ment taking  upon  itself  the  part  of  mediator,  and  thus  occupying 
the  situation  which  they  considered  as  exclusively  their  own,  and 
which,  it  appears,  on  the  present  occasion,  the  honourable  mem- 
ber for  Taunton  was  particularly  anxious  to  occupy.  He  would 
fain  have  had  the  Government  assume  a  different  course,  and  say 
to  those  who  want  all — you  shall  have  nothing;  and  to  those  who 
wish  to  retain  every  thing — you  shall  give  up  all;  in  order  that 
he  might  have  had  the  opportunity  of  correcting  the  extrava- 
gance of  the  Government,  and  saying,  "  No,  you  must  make  one 
party  concede  this,  and  the  opposing  party,  give  up  that;  a  gov- 
ernment ought  to  avoid  the  excesses  of  a  partisan."     This,  Sir, 


THE  SLAVE  POPULATION.  431 

is  exactly  what  the  Government  has  done.  It  has,  as  I  have  said, 
assumed  the  position  of  mediator;  and  the  honourable  gentleman 
appears  to  be  exceedingly  disappointed  that  the  situation  which 
he  had  marked  out  for  himself  is  thus  rilled. 

The  post  of  mediator  being  thus  occupied,  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman is  now  all  for  extremes:  "  Why  do  you  thus  hesitate?" 
savs  the  honourable  gentleman;  "why  temporize  with  the  ques- 
tion ?  why  not  decide  it  once  for  all  and  settle  it  for  ever  ?  If  there 
be  danger  in  decision,  you  ought  to  meet  it  manfully,  and  look  it 
boldly  in  the  face."  This,  Sir,  is  advice  very  easily  given  by 
those  who  are  not  responsible  for  the  consequences  of  following 
it.  But  the  honourable  gentleman's  advice  and  example  are  not 
in  exact  accordance  with  each  other.  If,  like  him,  we  had  bal- 
anced between  theory  and  practice,  we  should  have  done  nothing. 
But  keeping  his  wisdom  for  himself,  to  us  he  gives  advice  which 
would  be  sure  to  lead  us  into  difficulties.  "  Look  the  dangere  bold- 
ly in  the  face,"  says  he.  Allow  me  to  ask  what  does  the  honoura- 
ble gentleman  mean  by  looking  the  danger  boldly  in  the  face?  for 
I  protest  that  I  do  not  understand  him.  Does  he  mean  that  slavery 
shall  continue  as  it  is?  or  does  he  mean  to  recommend  immediate 
emancipation?  If  the  honourable  gentleman  counsels  either  of 
these  extremes,  and  will  have  the  goodness  to  say  which  of  them 
he  means  to  counsel,  he  will  be  at  least  intelligible,  he  will  have 
recommended  a  decisive  measure.  The  bold  course  of  which  he 
speaks  would  undoubtedly  be  to  adopt  one  of  these  extremes;  but 
in  the  most  perfect  sincerity,  I  declare  I  cannot  make  out  which 
of  the  two  is  his  favourite.  The  Government,  however,  has 
adopted  a  middle  course;  and  this  milder  mode  of  proceeding  is 
precisely  that,  which,  if  we  had  adopted  either  of  his  bold  courses, 
the  honourable  member  would  have  been  delighted  to  have  an  op- 
portunity of  recommending. 

The  course  now  proposed  by  His  Majesty's  Government  will, 
as  we  believe,  effect  every  thing  which,  after  mature  deliberation, 
we  believe  can  be  safely  attempted  at  this  time.  I  know  that 
there  are  persons  connected  with  the  West  Indies,  who  wish  to 
force  the  Government  to  say  more  on  this  subject;  to  extort  from 
us  a  further  declaration  of  the  views  which  we  entertain  for  the 
future.  They  wish  us  to  give  a  pledge  that  no  more  shall  ever  be 
done  than  is  now  proposed.  But  I  will  not  commit  myself  on 
this  subject. 

The  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Buxton)  opposite,  is  not  more 
vehement  in  his  abhorrence  of  slavery  in  the  abstract  than  I  am. 
But  I  have  a  repugnance  to  abstract  declarations.  I  am  desirous 
of  acting  on  this,  as  I  would  do  on  all  other  occasions,  on  the  best 
information  that  I  can  obtain,  with  a  view  to  practical  benefit:  I 
am  desirous  of  taking  moderation,  equity,  justice,  and  sound  pol- 


432  ON  THE  CONDITION  OF,  &c. 

icy,  for  my  guides.  But  I  will  not  consent  to  be  fettered  by  any 
engagements  express,  or  implied.  I  will  not  be  led  by  either  side, 
or  in  either  sense,  to  declarations  from  which  it  may  be  impossi- 
ble to  advance,  and  dangerous  to  retreat.  If  it  would  be  improp- 
er to  declare  an  intention  of  stopping  here,  it  would  be  equally 
improper  to  hold  out  any  pledge  of  ulterior  and  accelerated  meas- 
ures. The  question  is  not — it  cannot  be  made — a  question  of 
right,  of  humanity,  of  morality  merely.  It  is  a  question  which 
contemplates  a  change,  great  and  difficult  beyond  example;  one 
almost  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  accomplish;  a  change  in  the 
condition  and  circumstances  of  an  entire  class  of  our  fellow  crea- 
tures, the  recasting,  as  it  were,  of  a  whole  generation  of  mankind. 
If  this  be  not  a  question  requiring  deliberation,  cautious  and  fear- 
ful deliberation,  I  know  not  what  can  be  so.  Sir,  we  must  pro- 
ceed in  it  with  the  extremest  circumspection;  we  must  watch  the 
signs  of  the  times,  taking  advantage  of  every  favourable  occur- 
rence; but  reserving  a  discretion  and  freedom  of  action,  which  it 
would  be  madness  wantonly  to  throw  away. 

Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  the  opinion  of  the  honourable 
member  for  Taunton,  I  will  not  consent  to  depart  from  the  course, 
which,  after  the  most  mature  consideration,  the  Government  has 
determined  to  adopt.  I  will  cheerfully  resign  to  him  either  of 
the  extremes,  between  which  alone  he  conceives  the  choice  to  lie: 
but  I  will  not  be  shamed  by  any  thing  which  the  honourable  gen- 
tleman can  say,  out  of  our  moderate  and  middle  course  of  policy, 
into  one  which,  because  we  have  not  adopted  it,  he  calls  by  the 
name  of  decision,  but  which,  if  we  had  been  unadvised  enough  to 
engage  in  it,  he  would  justly  have  characterized  as  rashness. 

The  question  was  then  put,  and  leave  was  given  to  bring  in  a  Bill  for  the 
more  effectual  suppression  of  the  African  Slave  Trade. 


433 


STATE  OF  SLAVERY. 

MAY  19th,  1826. 

Mr.  Brougham  moved  the  following  Resolution: — 

"  That  this  House  has  observed  with  deep  regret  that  nothing  effectual  has 
been  done  by  the  Legislatures  of  His  Majesty's  Colonies  in  the  West  Indies, 
in  compliance  with  the  declared  wishes  of  His  Majesty's  Government,  and  the 
Resolutions  of  this  House  of  the  15th  of  May,  1823,  touching  the  condition  of 
the  Slaves;  and  this  House  will,  therefore,  early  in  the  next^Session  of  Parlia- 
ment, take  into  its  most  serious  consideration  such  measures  as  may  appear  to 
be  necessary  for  giving  effect  to  the  said  Resolutions." 


Mr.  Canning  rose,  and  addressed  the  House  to  the  following 
effect: — The  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  (Mr.  Denman) 
who  spoke  last,  Sir,  has  brought  the  question  which  is  now  before 
the  House,  precisely  to  that  point  at  which  I  am  desirous  of  meet- 
ing it. 

The  practical  point  to  be  decided  is,  whether  the  Resolution 
now  proposed  for  its  adoption,  is  likely  to  be  useful,  or  otherwise, 
for  the  purposes  for  which  I  am  bound  to  believe  it  is  intended? 
That  Resolution  contains,  indeed,  some  propositions,  to  which,  as 
abstract  propositions,  I  have  no  difficulty,  (with  certain  modifica- 
tions) in  subscribing.  But  the  questions  for  the  House,  on  the 
present  occasion,  I  take  to  be — not  whether  the  Resolution  be  ab- 
stractedly true,  but  whether  the  passing  of  any  such  Resolution 
as  this  be  either  necessary  or  advisable?  and  if  it  be  neither  ne- 
cessary nor  advisable,  whether  it  may  not  be  rather  detrimental 
than  beneficial  to  the  general  object  upon  which  the  House  has  al- 
ready expressed  its  determination. 

In  addressing  myself  to  these  questions,  I  must  lay  out  of  the 
account  much — indeed  the  greater  part — of  the  speech  of  one 
honourable  and  learned  gentleman  (Dr.  Lushington;)  because  it 
has  been  already  determined  by  the  House,  and  by  the  Govern- 
ment, to  proceed  in  this  great  measure,  as  far  as  possible,  by  means 
of  conciliation  and  recommendation;  but  the  whole  of  the  hon- 
ourable and  learned  gentleman's  speech  was  directed  rather  to 
means  of  force  and  terror.  That  speech,  therefore,  I  must  pass 
by,  as  entirely  dissonant  from  the  whole  tone  and  temper  in  which 
the  discussion  of  this  matter  has  been  hitherto  conducted;  and  es- 
pecially from  the  laborious  and  temperate  speech  with  which  this 
Resolution  has  been  introduced  for  our  deliberation. 

I  must  assume,  Sir,  that  the  Resolutions  passed  by  this  House, 
in  May,  1823,  constitute  the  rule  which  Parliament  have  agreed 

57  NN 


434  STATE  OF  SLAVERY. 

to  take  for  their  guidance;  and  I  must  also  assume  (the  position 
which  I  have  just  stated  not  being  contradicted)  that  the  several 
measures  which  the  Government  have  founded  on  those  Resolu- 
tions, are  admitted  to  have  been  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  those 
Resolutions,  and  to  have  been  framed  in  accordance  with  that 
spirit. 

If,  Sir,  there  be  those  who  think  that  a  different  course  from 
that  which  the  House  of  Commons  has  pursued,  ought  to  have 
been  adopted;  if  there  be  those  who  are  even  disposed  to  go  back 
to  the  year  1807,  and  to  contend  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  West  Indies,  ought  to  have  been  then  enforced  by  the  same 
Act  of  Parliament  which  abolished  the  trade  in  slaves,  I  have 
really  only  to  say  to  them  that  they  come  too  late  into  the  field; 
that  Parliament  has  already  taken  its  determination,  and  formed 
its  decision  on  that  subject.  I  must  remind  them  that  Parliament 
has  already  declared,  in  a  way  not  to  be  misunderstood,  that  it 
would  not  enact  the  emancipation  of  slaves  in  the  West  Indies; 
that  it  looks  to  that  result  only  through  a  sober  and  gradual  course 
of  measures;  that  it  will  not  be  diverted  from  that  course,  except 
by  a  degree  of  resistance,  amounting  to  contumacy  on  the  part 
of  the  West  Indian  colonies,  which  it  will  not  at  present  appre- 
hend. 

If  there  be  those  again  who  think  that  this  important  question, 
involving,  as  it  confessedly  does,  the  lives,  the  interests,  and  the 
property  of  our  fellow  subjects,  is  to  be  determined  on  the  abstract 
proposition — "  That  man  cannot  be  made  the  property  of  man," 
— I  take  the  liberty  of  relegating  them  to  the  schools;  and  of  tell- 
ing them  that  they  do  not  deal  with  this  grave  and  complicated 
matter  as  members  of  the  British  Parliament,  or  as  members  of  a 
society  constituted  like  that  in  which  we  live,  of  long  established 
interests,  of  conflicting  claims  to  protection,  of  modifications  and 
involutions  of  property,  not  to  be  changed  and  simplified  by  a 
sudden  effort,  and  of  usages  which,  however  undesirable,  if  the 
question  were  as  to  their  new  institution,  are  too  inveterately 
rooted  to  be  destroyed  at  a  single  blow.  I  must  tell  them,  Sir, 
that  the  practical  adoption  of  their  speculative  notions  would  ex- 
pose our  West  India  possessions  to  ravage  and  desolation;  which, 
I  think,  those  honourable  gentlemen  themselves  would  be  as  little 
satisfied  to  behold,  as  I  hope  they  are  prepared,  wilfully  to  pro- 
duce them. 

The  learned  civilian,  referring  to  a  former  debate,  has  quoted  a 
passage  of  a  speech  of  mine,  wherein  I  stated  "  that  the  spirit  of 
the  British  Constitution  was,  in  its  principle,  hostile  to  any  modi- 
fication of  slavery."  This  reference  compels  me  to  set  myself 
right  with  the  House.  The  learned  civilian  has  read  the  extract 
from  the  speech,  but  he  has  not  given  the  context  from  which  it 


STATE  OF  SLAVERY.  435 

is  torn.  Sir,  the  honourable  member  for  Weymouth  had,  on  that 
occasion,  prefaced  his  proposed  Resolution  with  a  declaration, 
that  "  the  state  of  slavery  was  repugnant  to  the  principles  of 
the  British  Constitution,  and  of  the  Christian  religion."  Did  I 
subscribe  to  that  proposition?  Can  the  sentence  quoted  by  the 
learned  civilian  be  fairly  understood  in  that  sense?  In  order  that 
the  House  should  rightly  understand  what  I  did  say,  I  will  read 
that  part  of  my  speech  of  that  day  to  which  the  quoted  sentence 
belongs. 

"  The  honourable  gentleman  (it  is  the  honourable  member  for 
Weymouth  to  whom  I  am  alluding)  begins  his  Resolution  with  a 
recital  which  I  confess  greatly  embarrasses  me.  He  says,  that 
'  the  state  of  slavery  is  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  the  British 
Constitution,  and  of  the  Christian  religion.'  God  forbid  that  he 
who  ventures  to  object  to  this  statement  should  therefore  be  held 
to  assert  a  contradiction  to  it!  I  do  not  say  that  the  state  of  slavery 
is  consonant  to  the  principles  of  the  British  Constitution:  still 
less  do  I  say  that  the  state  of  slavery  is  consonant  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Christian  religion.  But  though  I  do  not  advance  these 
propositions  myself,  nevertheless,  I  must  say,  that  in  my  opinion 
the  propositions  of  the  honourable  gentleman  are  not  practically 
true.  If  the  honourable  gentleman  means  that  the  British  Con- 
stitution does  not  admit  of  slavery  in  that  part  of  the  British  do- 
minions where  the  Constitution  is  in  full  play,  undoubtedly  his 
statement  is  true;  but  it  makes  nothing  for  his  object.  If,  how- 
ever, the  honourable  member  is  to  be  understood  to  maintain  that 
the  British  Constitution  has  not  tolerated  for  years,  nay,  more,  for 
centuries,  in  the  colonies,  the  existence  of  slavery — a  state  of  so- 
ciety unknown  in  the  mother  country — that  is  a  position  which 
is  altogether  without  foundation,  and  positively  and  practically 
untrue.  In  my  opinion,  when  a  proposition  is  submitted  to  this 
House,  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  the  House  to  act  upon  it,  care 
should  be  taken  not  to  confound,  as  I  think  is  done  in  this  Reso- 
lution, what  is  morally  true  with  what  is  historically  false.  Un- 
doubtedly, the  spirit  of  the  British  Constitution  is,  in  its  princi- 
ple, hostile  to  any  modification  of  slavery;  but  as  undoubtedly, 
the  British  Parliament  has  for  ages,  tolerated,  sanctioned,  protect- 
ed, and  even  encouraged  a  system  of  colonial  establishment  of 
which  it  well  knew  slavery  to  be  the  foundation." 

Here  I  do  not  say  that  slavery  is  sanctioned  by  the  spirit  of  the 
Christian  religion;  and  as  little  do  I  say,  that  it  is  sanctioned  by 
the  principles  of  the  British  Constitution.  But,  although  I  do  not 
advance  any  such  proposition  in  opposition  to  that  of  the  honour- 
able member  for  Weymouth,  still  I  do  say,  that  his  proposition  is 
not  practically  true.  If  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman 
meant  to  say,  that  the  spirit,  of  the  British  Constitution  is  adverse 


436  STATE  OF   SLAVERY. 

to  slavery,  I  admit  the  truth  of  his  proposition;  but  it  makes  noth- 
ing for  his  argument.  If  he  meant  to  say,  that  the  British  Con- 
stitution has  not  for  years  tolerated  slavery  in  its  colonies,  then  it 
is  quite  evident  that  his  proposition  is  positively  and  practically 
untrue.  I  contended  then,  as  I  contend  now,  that  care  ought  to 
be  taken,  in  touching  questions  of  this  nature,  not  to  mingle  and 
confound  what  is  morally  true  with  what  is  historically  false.  I 
admitted,  then,  as  I  admit  now,  that  the  Constitution  of  this  country 
is  adverse  to  the  practice  or  principle  of  slavery;  but,  I  affirmed 
then,  and  I  now  repeat  the  affirmation,  that  the  Parliament  of  this 
country  has  protected,  fostered,  and  encouraged  establishments, 
whose  main  support,  it  well  knew,  was  derived  from  slavery. 
Guarded  then,  Sir,  as  my  declaration  on  this  subject  was  at  the 
beginning,  guarded  as  it  was  at  the  end,  I  think  the  learned  gen- 
tleman did  not  do  quite  fairly, — did  not  act,  in  respect  to  my 
speech,  as  he  would  have  acted  professionally  in  the  citation  of  any 
document  in  a  court  of  justice, — when  he  separated  a  single  sen- 
tence, or  rather  member  of  a  sentence,  from  the  rest,  and  present- 
ed it  to  the  House,  as  a  simple,  direct,  substantive,  and  unqualified 
proposition. 

The  learned  gentleman  seems,  indeed,  to  think  that  he  is  at 
liberty  to  construe  my  speech  of  three  years  ago  by  comparison 
with  something  which  passed  the  other  day,  in  another  place;  of 
which,  as  stated  by  himself,  I  profess  I  do  not  see  the  practical 
bearing  upon  my  argument  (such  as  I  have  now  shown  that  argu- 
ment to  have  been;) — but  of  which  I  know  absolutely  nothing 
but  what  the  assertion  of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman 
conveys  to  me.  The  distinction  I  now  wish  to  press  upon  the  at- 
tention of  the  House,  is  the  same  as  I  have  always  endeavoured 
to  maintain.  I  have  before  said,  that  theoretically  true  as  it  may 
be,  that  the  spirit  of  slavery  is  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  the  Brit- 
ish Constitution,  yet  this  country,  blessed  though  she  has  been 
with  a  free  Constitution  herself,  has  encouraged  in  her  colonies 
the  practice  of  slavery,  however  alien  to  her  own  domestic  insti- 
tutions; and  this,  too,  be  it  remembered,  at  a  time  when  her  coun- 
cils were  guided  by  men,  the  acknowledged  and  boasted  friends 
of  liberty.  I  will  not  stop  to  enter  into  a  disquisition  whether, 
at  the  time  to  which  I  refer,  the  duties  of  governments,  and  the 
rights  of  man,  as  man,  were  as  fully  understood  as  in  the  age  in 
which  we  have  the  happiness  to  live;  whether  the  freedom  of 
England  had  then  attained  that  moral  maturity  which  it  now  ex- 
hibits. Be  that  as  it  may,  the  simple  fact  is,  that  this  country, 
notwithstanding  her  free  Constitution,  did  found  and  maintain, 
nay,  more,  did  foster  and  prescribe  a  system,  of  which,  not  only 
was  slavery  an  ingredient,  but  which  required  an  annual  influx  of 


STATE  OF  SLAVERY.  437 

the  black  Stygian  stream  of  slavery  for  its  nutriment  and  susten- 
tation. 

But  there  was  another  part  of  the  proposition  put  forth  by  the 
honourable  member  for  Weymouth,  on  the  occasion  to  which  the 
learned  civilian  has  alluded,  viz. — that  the  state  of  slavery  is  re- 
pugnant to  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  To  this,  Sir, 
I  objected,  not,  certainly,  meaning  thereby  to  degrade  the  Chris- 
tian religion  by  the  imputatian  that  it  was  tolerant  of  slavery;  but 
meaning  to  free  this  country  from  the  necessity  which  would  re- 
sult from  the  adoption  of  the  honourable  gentleman's  doctrine — 
the  necessity  of  proceeding,  without  pause  or  hesitation,  not 
merely  to  the  immediate  modification  and  gradual  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  colonies,  but  to  its  instant  and  total  extirpation. 
What  I  meant  to  deny  in  the  honourable  member's  proposition 
was,  that  the  Christian  religion  and  slavery  could  not  be  in  exist- 
ence together.  I  said  that  the  reverse  is  the  fact; — that  they  have 
co-existed  from  the  very  dawn  of  Christianity  up  to  the  present 
day.  Neither,  therefore,  am  I  forced  to  admit  that  it  is  a  princi- 
ple of  the  Christian  religion  to  sanction  slavery.  The  course  of 
the  Christian  religion  has  always  been  to  adapt  itself  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  place  and  time  in  which  it  was  seeking  to  make 
a  progress;  to  accommodate  itself  to  all  stations  of  life,  to  all  va- 
rieties of  acting  or  of  suffering;  restraining  the  high,  exalting  the 
lowly,  by  precepts  applicable  to  all  diversities  of  situation:  and 
alike  contributing  to  the  happiness  of  man,  and  providing  for  his 
welfare,  whether  connected  with  his  highest  destinies,  or  descend- 
ing with  him  to  his  lowest  degradation, — whether  mounting  the 
throne  of  the  Caesars,  or  comforting  the  captive  in  his  cell. 

But  while  Christianity  has  thus  blessed  and  improved  man- 
kind, its  operation  has  not  been  direct,  precipitate,  or  violent.  It 
has  invaded  no  existing  rights  or  relations,  it  has  disturbed  no  es- 
tablished modes  of  government  or  law.  It  has  rendered  and  re- 
commended obedience  to  temporal  power,  even  where  that  power 
was  exercised  with  no  light  hand,  and  administered  through  no 
mild  or  uncorrupted  institutions.  While  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity were  preaching  in  the  streets  of  Rome, — "  servi  crucian- 
tur"  continued  to  be  the  ordinary  form  of  process  in  the  Forum, 
not  for  the  punishment  of  the  slave  who  had  been  convicted  of 
a  crime,  but  for  extracting  evidence  from  one  produced  as  a 
witness. 

Then,  Sir,  it  is  not  true,  that  the  Christian  religion  prescribes 
the  extinction  of  slavery,  with  unsparing,  uncompromising,  in- 
discriminating  haste.  It  is  not  true  that  Christianity  ordains  the 
extirpation  of  this  great  moral  evil  by  other  means  than  those 
which  are  consonant  with  the  just  spirit  of  the  British  Constitu- 
tion,— means  of  equity  and  good  faith,  as  well  as  of  well-under- 

NN* 


438  STATE  OF  SLAVERY. 

stood  humanity;  measures  moderate  in  their  character,  and  pro- 
gressive in  their  operation. 

Is  there  any  thing,  then,  Sir,  in  what  I  have  laid  down  to  in- 
culpate the  spirit  of  Christianity  or  the  principles  of  the  British 
Constitution?  If  the  British  Government,  and  the  British  Parlia- 
ment, have  for  a  long  series  of  years  fostered  that  system  upon 
which  we  all  now  look  with  abhorrence,  what  is  the  fair  infer- 
ence ? — Is  it  that  we  are  to  continue  to  foster  and  cherish  it  still  ? 
— No,  Sir;  that  is  not  what  I  maintain:  but  I  do  maintain  that 
we,  having  all  concurred  in  the  guilt  of  rearing  and  fostering  the 
evil,  are  not  to  turn  round  upon  the  planters,  and  say,  "you  alone 
shall  suffer  all  the  penalty; — we  determine  to  get  rid  of  this  moral 
pestilence,  which  infects  our  character  as  much  as  yours,  which 
lue  have  as  much  contributed  to  propagate  as  you;  but  you,  as 
spotted  lepers,  shall  be  banished  from  our  society,  and  cast  to  ut- 
ter ruin,  to  expiate  our  common  crime." 

Sir,  I  propose  that  we  proceed  with  more  deliberate  counsel, 
and  a  more  even  hand.  The  House  has  already  resolved  so  to 
proceed;  and  the  question  for  decision,  therefore,  this  night  is, 
whether  the  Resolution  now  offered  for  adoption  is  conceived  in 
that  even  spirit,  and  bears  the  stamp  of  that  temperate  delib- 
eration ? 

In  order  to  decide  this  question,  let  us  look  where  we  now 
stand.  The  Resolutions  of  May,  1823,  form  the  ground  upon 
which  we  have  hitherto  proceeded: — Is  there,  then,  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Government  have  acted  upon  those  Resolutions 
otherwise  than  in  the  most  perfect  sincerity?  and  have  not  the 
Government  avowed  their  determination,  if  the  colonies  should 
evince  a  contumacious  resistance,  to  call  upon  Parliament  for  aid? 

If  we  have  acted  with  sincerity  on  the  views  sanctioned  by 
Parliament,  and  if  we  have  not  departed  from  the  declaration  of 
our  determination  to  come  to  Parliament  for  aid,  if  necessary, — 
wherefore  now  adopt  a  Resolution,  which,  if  it  is  not  necessary 
for  the  furtherance  of  the  views  of  Government,  must  of  neces- 
sity perplex  them  ?  We  have  already  had,  in  the  course  of  the 
session,  two  motions  connected  with  this  subject.  Upon  one  of 
them,  that  relating  to  certain  trials  of  slaves  in  the  West  Indies, 
I  moved  an  amendment,  expressive  of  the  disgust  naturally  felt 
at  some  of  the  scenes  brought  under  the  notice  of  the  House  on 
that  occasion;  and  declaring  that  we  saw  in  those  scenes  only 
greater  reason  to  adhere  to  the  Resolutions  of  1823.  If,  therefore, 
the  Resolution  proposed  to  us  this  night  were  no  more  than  a  re- 
newal of  our  former  declarations,  it  would  amount  to  nothing — it 
would  be  powerless,  it  would  be  useless. 

But  it  is  no  such  thing.  Let  us  examine  what  it  is.  In  the 
first  place,  it  expresses  regret  at  the  proceedings  of  the  W°.st  In- 


STATE  OF  SLAVERY.  439 

dian  Legislatures.  To  this  part  of  it  I  can  have  no  objection, 
further  than  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  record  over  again 
what  we  have  already  recorded.  But  the  second  part  of  the  Reso- 
lution pledges  the  House  to  follow  up  this  declaration  with  mea- 
sures, not  defined,  in  the  ensuing  session.  To  that  part  I  have  a 
decided  objection.  I  think  that  to  pledge  ourselves  to  such  a  de- 
claration would  be  productive  of  positive  mischief. 

I,  Sir,  do  not  despair,  that,  in  the  course  of  the  six  or  eight 
months  which  may  intervene  between  the  present  and  ensuing 
session,  the  West  Indian  Legislatures  may  adopt  measures  in  the 
spirit  of  the  recommendations  sent  out  to  them.  I  think  their 
disposition  to  do  this  would  be  weakened  by  a  pledge  of  the  na- 
ture proposed.  They  would  argue,  that  we  knew  not  our  own 
minds;  that,  dissatisfied  with  the  course  which  we  had  already 
taken,  we  now  stood  pledged  to  resort  to  some  other  undefined 
mode  of  legislation;  that  whatever  might  have  been,  up  to  this 
period,  the  views  of  Government,  the  House  of  Commons  had 
stepped  in  and  changed  them.  In  this  way  would  the  Jamaica 
Legislature  have  a  right  to  argue.  Would  it,  then,  Sir,  be  pru- 
dent to  abandon  at  once  expectations  which  the  West  Indian  Leg- 
islatures will  not  be  so  absurd  and  impolitic  (to  use  no  harsher 
epithet)  as  to  disappoint,  by  signifying  to  them  that  we  are  not 
satisfied  with  our  own  course,  and  warning  them  thereby  to  wait 
and  see  what  further  steps  we  may  be  disposed  to  take,  on  an- 
other plan,  and  in  a  different  direction  ? 

An  honourable  friend  of  mine  (Mr.  C.  Ellis,)  Sir,  who  has 
done  himself  so  much  credit  by  his  speech  to-night,  has  asked 
me,  whether  he  is  to  understand  the  Order  in  Council  respecting 
Trinidad  as  comprising  the  whole  of  the  system  of  the  Govern- 
ment? My  answer  is,  that  so  far  as  the  Resolutions  of  this  House 
prescribe  to  Government  the  course  to  be  pursed,  so  far  the  Order 
in  Council  in  question  does  comprise  the  intentions  of  Govern- 
ment. If  the  Colonial  Legislatures  act  bona  fide  up  to  the  spirit 
of  that  order,  with  a  manifest  desire  not  merely 

"  To  keep  the  word  of  promise  to  the  ear, 
And  hreak  it  to  the  hope ;" 

not  by  evasive  or  illusory  enactments, — but  with  a  full  and  fair 
intention  to  carry  substantially  into  effect  the  ameliorations  re- 
commended to  them,  I  am  convinced  that  the  views  of  Parlia- 
ment will  be  accomplished.  It  is  to  the  spirit  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Wcsl  Indian  Legislatures  that  we  shall  look;  and  the  Gov- 
ment,  and,  I  believe,  the  Parliament,  are  disposed  to  look  to  it 
with  confidence  and  candour. 

My  honourable  friend  has  particularly  adverted  to  the  clause 
for  compulsory  manumission  of  slaves.  It  is  undoubtedly  the 
main  cause  of  the  whole.     It  is  the  only  one  that  is  directly  ope- 


440  STATE  OF  SLAVERY. 

rative.  All  the  rest  go  to  mitigate,  to  improve,  to  regulate  the 
system  of  slavery;  to  render  it  more  tolerable  in  its  existence, 
and  to  prepare  its  gradual  decay.  This  clause  is  the  way  out  of 
that  system, — the  opening  by  which  slavery  itself  may  escape, 
gradually,  and,  as  it  were,  imperceptibly,  without  the  shock  of  a 
convulsion. 

The  great  difference  between  the  plans  of  His  Majesty's  Min- 
isters and  those  of  the  honourable  gentlemen  who  are  desirous  of 
a  more  rapid  progress  is  this, — that  those  honourable  gentlemen 
would  risk  great  dangers — would  risk  even  the  frustration  of 
their  own  object,  for  the  hope  of  arriving  at  it  immediately; 
whereas  we  would  rather  postpone  a  little  the  attainment  of  the 
object,  in  order  that  we  may  arrive  at  it  with  a  greater  assurance 
of  safety. 

I  agree,  Sir,  in  many  particulars,  with  an  honourable  gentle- 
man opposite  (Mr.  Bernal,)  who  has  spoken  with  so  much  good 
sense;  but  I  differ  from  him  widely  on  the  subject  of  compen- 
sation. 

I  think  nothing  could  be  more  monstrous  than  to  admit  a 
claim  of  compensation  into  a  system  of  measures  which  are 
purely  measures  of  amelioration;  and  which  all  who  look  upon 
the  moral  improvement  of  the  slave  as  beneficial  to  the  interests 
of  the  master,  must  acknowledge  to  be  calculated  to  create  event- 
ually an  advance  instead  of  a  deterioration  in  the  value  of  the 
master's  property  in  his  slaves.  I  admit,  at  the  same  time,  that 
the  principle  of  compulsory  manumission,  being  one  of  force 
(though  qualified  so  as  to  guard  against  danger,)  there  it  is  that 
the  principle  of  compensation  properly  finds  its  place.  The 
price  which  the  manumitted  slave  will  have  to  pay  to  his  owner, 
— augmenting,  as  it  naturally  must  do,  in  proportion  to  the  im- 
proved value  of  the  slave,  is  the  medium  through  which  that  just 
compensation  will  be  administered. 

Sir,  although  the  discussion  upon  this  question  has  been  long, 
and  although  many  foreign  topics  have  been  introduced  into  it,  I 
am  not  aware  of  any  other  practical  points,  beside  those  I  have 
already  touched  upon,  which  call  for  answer  or  explanation.  Nor 
would  it  be  consistent  with  what  I  have  said  of  the  inopportune- 
ness  of  these  repeated  discussions,  to  protract  that  of  to-night 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  question  on  which  the  vote  of  the  House 
is  to  be  taken. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  that  while  I  willingly  admit  that 
the  dictates  of  humanity,  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  the  spirit  of  the  British  Constitution  repudiate  slavery,  there 
is  nothing  in  that  admission  which  calls  upon  us  to  abolish  the 
system,  however  odious,  with  a  violence  and  precipitancy,  the  ef- 
fect of  which  would  be  to  bring  down  ruin  upon  so  large  a  class 


STATE  OF   SLAVERY.  441 

of  our  fellow  subjects,  and  to  exchange  the  evils  of  slavery  for 
those  of  anarchy  and  bloodshed.  I  hope  that  I  have  also  shown 
that  the  Government  is  sincere  in  its  endeavour  to  carry  into 
effect  the  wishes  of  Parliament,  wisely,  temperately,  soberly,  in 
the  spirit  in  which  those  wishes  were  conceived.  But  I  also 
hope  that  I  shall  have  made  it  clear  to  those  whose  interests  are 
more  directly  involved  in  this  great  question,  and  whose  agency 
is  necessary  to  the  satisfactory  solution  of  it,  that  what  we  profess 
to  do  with  temperance  and  soberness,  we  are,  at  the  same  time, 
determined  to  do,  or  to  see  done.  I  trust  it  will  be  understood, 
that  it  is  only  because  we  do  not  like  any  thing  which  has  the 
appearance  of  menace,  that  I  have  not  to-night  distinctly  re- 
peated the  declaration,  that  if,  contrary  to  our  hope,  we  should  be 
met  by  the  colonies  with  contumacious  opposition,  we  shall  come 
to  Parliament  for  aid — an  aid  which  Parliament  will  not  hesitate 
in  granting,  to  carry  into  execution  its  own  wholesome  and  holy 
determination. 

The  House  divided : — 

For  Mr.  Brougham's  Resolution  .     .     38 
Against  it 100 

Majority 62 


58 


442 


THE  KING'S  MESSAGE. 

DECEMBER  12th,  1826. 

"  George  R. 

"  His  Majesty  acquaints  the  House  of  Commons  that  His  Majesty  has  re- 
ceived an  earnest  application  from  the  Princess  Regent  of  Portugal,  claiming, 
in  virtue  of  the  ancient  obligations  of  alliance  and  amity  between  His  Ma- 
jesty and  the  Crown  of  Portugal,  His  Majesty's  aid  against  an  hostile  aggres- 
sion from  Spain. 

"  His  Majesty  has  exerted  himself  for  some  time  past,  in  conjunction  with 
Ilis  Majesty's  ally,  the  King  of  France,  to  prevent  such  an  aggression:  and 
repeated  assurances  have  been  given  by  the  Court  of  Madrid  of  the  deter- 
mination of  His  Catholic  Majesty  neither  to  commit,  nor  allow  to  be  committed 
from  His  Catholic  Majesty's  territory,  any  aggression  against  Portugal ;  but 
His  Majesty  has  learned,  with  deep  concern,  that  notwithstanding  these  as- 
surances, hostile  inroads  into  the  territory  of  Portugal  have  been  concerted  in 
Spain,  and  have  been  executed  under  the  eyes  of  Spanish  authorities  by  Por- 
tuguese regiments,  which  had  deserted  into  Spain,  and  which  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment had  repeatedly  and  solemnly  engaged  to  disarm  and  to  disperse. 

"  His  Majesty  leaves  no  effort  unexhausted  to  awaken  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment to  the  dangerous  consequences  of  this  apparent  connivance. 

"  His  Majesty  makes  this  communication  to  the  House  of  Commons  with  the 
full  and  entire  confidence,  that  his  faithful  Commons  will  afford  to  His  Majesty 
their  cordial  concurrence  and  support  in  maintaining  the  faith  of  treaties,  and 
in  securing  against  foreign  hostility  the  safety  and  independence  of  the  king- 
dom of  Portugal,  the  oldest  ally  of  Great  Britain. 

"G.  R." 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning  moved  the  Order  of  the  Day,  for  taking  into  con- 
sideration His  Majesty's  gracious  Message. 

The  Message  was  then  read.* 

*  At  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  corrected  report  of  this  speech,  it 
was  asserted  that  it  differed  materially  from  the  speech,  as  originally  spoken 
by  Mr.  Canning.  The  Editor  of  this  work  happens  to  have  in  his  possession 
the  original  proof  copy,  submitted  for  correction,  with  Mr  Canning's  altera- 
tions ;  and  though  it  cannot  be  denied  that  many  alterations  were  made  in  it, 
yet  they  are  alterations  rather  of  style  and  language  than  of  sentiment.  As  a 
fair  test  by  which  to  determine  the  accuracy  of  this  observation,  the  Editor 
would  refer  to  the  latter  half  of  the  first  speech  of  Mr.  Canning  on  the  affairs 
of  Portugal,  which  Count  Chateaubriand,  in  the  French  Chamber  of  Peers, 
quoted  as  the  most  objectionable  passage  in  the  speech.  The  report  from 
which  the  noble  Peer  quoted  it  was  that  which  appeared  in  the  Morning 
Chronicle,  in  which  journal  the  passage  was  reported  by  a  gentleman  who  has 
brought  the  very  useful  accomplishment  of  short-hand  writing  to  the  utmost 
degree  of  perfection  of  which  it  is  susceptible.  On  a  comparison  of  this  part 
of  the  speech  in  the  original  and  corrected  reports,  there  will  not  be  found  a 
single  omission  or  alteration,  except,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  an  altera- 
tion of  style  and  language. — London  Editor. 


THE  KING'S  MESSAGE,  &c.  443 

Mr.  Secretary  Canning. — Mr.  Speaker, — In  proposing  to 
the  House  of  Commons  to  acknowledge,  by  an  humble  and  duti- 
ful Address,  His  Majesty's  most  gracious  message,  and  to  reply 
to  it  in  terms  which  will  be,  in  effect,  an  echo  of  the  sentiments, 
and  a  fulfilment  of  the  anticipations  of  that  message,  I  feel  that, 
however  confident  I  may  be  in  the  justice,  and  however  clear  as 
to  the  policy  of  the  measures  therein  announced,  it  becomes  me, 
as  a  British  Minister,  recommending  to  Parliament  any  step 
which  may  approximate  this  country  even  to  the  hazard  of  a  war, 
while  I  explain  the  grounds  of  that  proposal,  to  accompany  my 
explanation  with  expressions  of  regret. 

I  can  assure  the  House,  that  there  is  not  within  its  walls  any 
set  of  men  more  deeply  convinced  than  His  Majesty's  Ministers 
— nor  any  individual  more  intimately  persuaded  than  he  who  has 
now  the  honour  of  addressing  you — of  the  vital  importance  of  the 
continuance  of  peace,  to  this  country  and  to  the  world.  So  strongly 
am  I  impressed  with  this  opinion — and  for  reasons  of  which  I 
will  put  the  House  more  fully  in  possession  before  I  sit  down — that, 
I  declare,  there  is  no  question  of  doubtful  or  controverted  policy 
— no  opportunity  of  present  national  advantage — no  precaution 
against  remote  difficulty — which  I  would  not  gladly  compromise, 
pass  over,  or  adjourn,  rather  than  call  on  Parliament  to  sanction, 
at  this  moment,  any  measure  which  had  a  tendency  to  involve  the 
country  in  war.  But,  at  the  same  time,  Sir,  I  feel  that  which  has 
been  felt,  in  the  best  times  of  English  history,  by  the  best  states- 
men of  this  country,  and  by  the  Parliaments  by  whom  those 
statesmen  were  supported — I  feel  that  there  are  two  causes,  and 
but  two  causes,  which  cannot  be  either  compromised,  passed  over, 
or  adjourned.  These  causes  are,  adherence  to  the  national  faith, 
and  regard  for  the  national  honour. 

Sir,  if  I  did  not  consider  both  these  causes  as  involved  in  the 
proposition  which  I  have  this  day  to  make  to  you,  I  should  not 
address  the  House,  as  I  now  do,  in  the  full  and  entire  confidence 
that  the  gracious  communication  of  His  Majesty  will  be  met  by 
the  House  with  the  concurrence  of  which  His  Majesty  has  de- 
clared his  expectation. 

In  order  to  bring  the  matter  which  I  have  to  submit  to  you  un- 
der the  cognizance  of  the  House  in  the  shortest  and  clearest  man- 
ner, I  beg  leave  to  state  it,  in  the  first  instance,  divested  of  any 
collateral  considerations.  It  is  a  case  of  law  and  of  fact: — of  na- 
tional law  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  notorious  fact  on  the  other; 
such  as  it  must  be,  in  my  opinion,  as  impossible  for  Parliament 
as  it  was  for  the  Government,  to  regard  in  any  but  one  light;  or 
to  come  to  any  but  one  conclusion  upon  it. 

Among  the  alliances  by  which,  at  different  periods  of  our  his- 
tory, this  country  has  been  connected  with  the  other  nations  of 


444  KING'S   MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

Europe,  none  is  so  ancient  in  origin,  and  so  precise  in  obligation 
— none  has  continued  so  long  and  been  observed  so  faithfully — 
of  none  is  the  memory  so  intimately  interwoven  with  the  most 
brilliant  records  of  our  triumphs,  as  that  by  which  Great  Britain 
is  connected  with  Portugal.  It  dates  back  to  distant  centuries; 
it  has  survived  an  endless  variety  of  fortunes.  Anterior  in  ex- 
istence to  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Braganza  to  the  throne 
of  Portugal — it  derived,  however,  fresh  vigour  from  that  event; 
and  never,  from  that  epoch  to  the  present  hour,  has  the  independ- 
ent monarchy  of  Portugal  ceased  to  be  nurtured  by  the  friend- 
ship of  Great  Britain.  This  alliance  has  never  been  seriously 
interrupted:  but  it  has  been  renewed  by  repeated  sanctions.  It 
has  been  maintained  under  difficulties  by  which  the  fidelity  of 
other  alliances  were  shaken,  and  has  been  vindicated  in  fields  of 
blood  and  of  glory. 

That  the  alliance  with  Portugal  has  been  always  unqualifiedly 
advantageous  to  this  country — that  it  has  not  been  sometimes  in- 
convenient and  sometimes  burdensome — I  am  not  bound  nor  pre- 
pared to  maintain.  But  no  British  statesman,  so  far  as  I  know, 
has  ever  suggested  the  expediency  of  shaking  it  off :  and  it  is  as- 
suredly not  at  a  moment  of  need,  that  honour,  and  what  I  may 
be  allowed  to  call  national  sympathy,  would  permit  us  to  weigh, 
with  an  over-scrupulous  exactness,  the  amount  of  difficulties  and 
dangers  attendant  upon  its  faithful  and  steadfast  observance.  What 
feelings  of  national  honour  would  forbid,  is  forbidden  alike  by 
the  plain  dictates  of  national  faith. 

It  is  not  at  distant  periods  of  history,  and  in  by-gone  ages  only, 
that  the  traces  of  the  union  between  Great  Britain  and  Portugal 
are  to  be  found.  In  the  last  compact  of  modern  Europe,  the 
compact  which  forms  the  basis  of  its  present  international  law — I 
mean  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  of  1815 — this  country,  with  its  eyes 
open  to  the  possible  inconveniences  of  the  connexion,  but  with  a 
memory  awake  to  its  past  benefits — solemnly  renewed  the  previ- 
ously existing  obligations  of  alliance  and  amity  with  Portugal.  I 
will  take  leave  to  read  to  the  House  the  third  article  of  the  Treaty 
concluded  at  Vienna  in  1815,  between  Great  Britain  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Portugal  on  the  other.  It  is  couched  in  the  following 
terms: — "The  Treaty  of  Alliance  concluded  at  Rio  de  Janeiro, 
on  the  19th  of  February,  1S10,  being  founded  on  circumstances 
of  a  temporary  nature,  which  have  happily  ceased  to  exist,  the 
said  treaty  is  hereby  declared  to  be  void  in  all  its  parts,  and  of  no 
effect;  ivithout  prejudice,  however,  to  the  ancient  treaties  of 
alliance,  friendship,  and  guarantee,  which  have  so  long  and 
so  happily  subsisted  between  the  tioo  Croivns,  and  which  are 
hereby  renewed  by  the  high  contracting  parties,  and  acknow- 
ledged to  be  of  full  force  and  effect." 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL. 


445 


In  order  to  appreciate  the  force  of  this  stipulation, — recent  in 
point  of  time,  recent  also  in  the  sanction  of  Parliament, — the 
House  will  perhaps  allow  me  to  explain  shortly  the  circumstances 
in  reference  to  which  it  was  contracted.  In  the  year  1S07,  when, 
upon  the  declaration  of  Buonaparte,  that  the  House  of  Braganza 
had  ceased  to  reign,  the  King  of  Portugal,  by  the  advice  of  Great 
Britain,  was  induced  to  set  sail  for  the  Brazils;  almost  at  the  very 
moment  of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty's  embarkation,  a  secret 
convention  was  signed  between  His  Majesty  and  the  King  of 
Portugal,  stipulating  that,  in  the  event  of  His  Most  Faithful  Ma- 
jesty's establishing  the  seat  of  his  Government  in  Brazil,  Great 
Britain  would  never  acknowledge  any  other  dynasty  than  that  of 
the  House  of  Braganza  on  the  throne  of  Portugal.  That  conven- 
tion, I  say,  was  contemporaneous  with  the  migration  to  the  Bra- 
zils: a  step  of  great  importance  at  the  time,  as  removing  from 
the  grasp  of  Buonaparte  the  sovereign  family  of  Braganza.  Af- 
terwards, in  the  year  1810,  when  the  seat  of  the  King  of  Portu- 
gal's Government  was  established  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  and  when  it 
seemed  probable,  in  the  then  apparently  hopeless  condition  of 
the  affairs  of  Europe,  that  it  was  likely  long  to  continue  there, 
the  secret  convention  of  1807,  of  which  the  main  object  was  ac- 
complished by  the  fact  of  the  emigration  to  Brazil,  was  abrogated, 
and  a  new  and  public  treaty  was  concluded,  into  which  was  trans- 
ferred the  stipulation  of  1S07,  binding  Great  Britain,  so  long  as 
His  Faithful  Majesty  should  be  compelled  to  reside  in  Brazil,  not 
to  acknowledge  any  other  sovereign  of  Portugal  than  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Braganza.  That  stipulation  which  had  hitherto 
been  secret,  thus  became  patent,  and  part  of  the  known  law  of 
nations. 

In  the  year  1814,  in  consequence  of  the  happy  conclusion  of 
the  war,  the  option  was  afforded  to  the  King  of  Portugal  of  re- 
turning to  his  European  dominions.  It  was  then  felt  that,  as  the 
necessity  of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty's  absence  from  Portugal 
had  ceased,  the  ground  for  the  obligation  originally  contracted  in 
the  secret  convention  of  1807,  and  afterwards  transferred  to  the 
patent  Treaty  of  1S10,  was  removed.  The  Treaty  of  IS  10  was 
therefore  annulled  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna;  and  in  lieu  of  the 
stipulation  not  to  acknowledge  any  other  sovereign  of  Portugal 
than  a  member  of  the  House  of  Braganza,  was  substituted  that 
which  I  have  just  read  to  the  House. 

Annulling  the  Treaty  of  1810,  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  renews 
and  confirms,  (as  the  House  will  have  seen,)  all  former  treaties 
between  Grnt  Britain  and  Portugal,  describing  them  as  "ancient 
treaties  of  alliance,  friendship,  and  guarantee;"  as  having  "long 
and  happily  subsisted  between  the  two  crowns;"  and  as  being  al- 

oo 


446  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

lowed,  by  the  two  high  contracting  parties,  to  remain  "  in  full 
force  and  effect." 

What  then  is  the  force — what  is  the  effect  of  those  ancient  trea- 
ties ?  I  am  prepared  to  show  to  the  House  what  it  is.  But  before 
I  do  so,  I  must  say,  that  if  all  the  treaties  to  which  this  article  of 
the  Treaty  of  Vienna  refers  had  perished  by  some  convulsion  of 
nature,  or  had  by  some  extraordinary  accident  been  consigned  to 
total  oblivion,  still  it  would  be  impossible  not  to  admit,  as  an  in- 
contestible  inference  from  this  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Vienna 
alone,  that  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  there  is  incumbent  on  Great 
Britain,  a  decided  obligation  to  act  as  the  effectual  defender  of 
Portugal.  If  I  could  not  show  the  letter  of  a  single  antecedent 
stipulation,  I  should  still  contend  that  a  solemn  admission,  only 
ten  years  old,  of  the  existence  at  that  time  of  "  treaties  of  alli- 
ance, friendship,  and  guarantee,"  held  Great  Britain  to  the  dis- 
charge of  the  obligations  which  that  very  description  implies. 
But  fortunately  there  is  no  such  difficulty  in  specifying  the  nature 
of  those  obligations.  All  of  the  preceding  treaties  exist — all  of 
them  arc  of  easy  reference — all  of  them  are  known  to  this  coun- 
try, to  Spain,  to  every  nation  of  the  civilized  world.  They  are 
so  numerous,  and  their  general  result  is  so  uniform,  that  it  may  be 
sufficient  to  select  only  two  of  them  to  show  the  nature  of  all. 

The  first  to  which  I  shall  advert  is  the  Treaty  of  1661,  which 
was  concluded  at  the  time  of  the  marriage  of  Charles  the  Second 
with  the  Infanta  of  Portugal.  After  reciting  the  marriage,  and 
making  over  to  Great  Britain,  in  consequence  of  that  marriage, 
first,  a  considerable  sum  of  money,  and  secondly,  several  import- 
ant places,  some  of  which,  as  Tangier,  we  no  longer  possess;  but 
others  of  which,  as  Bombay,  still  belong  to  this  country,  the 
Treaty  runs  thus: — "  In  consideration  of  all  which  grants,  so  much 
to  the  benefit  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  his  subjects  in 
general,  and  of  the  delivery  of  those  important  places  to  his  said 
Majesty  and  his  heirs  for  ever,  &c,  the  King  of  Great  Britain 
does  profess  and  declare,  with  the  consent  and  advice  of  his  Coun- 
cil, that  he  will  take  the  interest  of  Portugal  and  all  its  dominions 
to  heart,  defending  the  same  with  his  utmost  power  by  sea  and 
land,  even  us  England  itself;''''  and  it  then  proceeds  to  specify 
the  succours  to  be  sent,  and  the  manner  of  sending  them. 

I  come  next  to  the  Treaty  of  1703,  a  treaty  of  alliance  contem- 
poraneous with  the  Methuen  Treaty,  which  has  regulated,  for  up- 
wards of  a  century,  the  commercial  relations  of  the  two  countries. 
The  Treaty  of  1703  was  a  tripartite  engagement  between  the 
States-General  of  Holland,  England,  and  Portugal.  The  second 
article  of  that  Treaty  sets  forth,  that  "  If  ever  it  shall  happen  that 
the  Kings  of  Spain  and  France,  either  the  present  or  the  future, 
that  both  of  them  together,  or  either  of  them  separately,  shall 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL.  447 

make  war,  or  give  occasion  to  suspect  that  they  intend  to  make 
war  upon  the  kingdom  of  Portugal,  either  on  the  continent  of  Eu- 
rope, or  on  its  dominions  beyond  the  seas;  Her  Majesty  the  Queen 
of  Great  Britain,  and  the  Lords  the  States-General  shall  use  their 
friendly  offices  with  the  said  Kings,  or  either  of  them,  in  order 
to  persuade  them  to  observe  the  terms  of  peace  towards  Portugal, 
and  not  to  make  war  upon  it."  The  third  article  declares,  that 
in  the  event  of  these  good  offices  not  proving  successful,  but  alto- 
gether ineffectual,  so  that  war  should  be  made  by  the  aforesaid 
kings,  or  by  either  of  them  upon  Portugal,  the  above-mentioned 
powers  of  Great  Britain  and  Holland  shall  make  war  with  all  their 
force  upon  the  aforesaid  Kings  or  King  who  shall  carry  hostile 
arms  into  Portugal;  and  towards  that  war  which  shall  be  carried 
on  in  Europe,  they  shall  supply  12,000  men,  whom  they  shall 
arm  and  pay,  as  well  when  in  quarters  as  in  action;  and  the  said 
high  allies  shall  be  obliged  to  keep  that  number  of  men  complete, 
by  recruiting  it  from  time  to  time  at  their  own  expense." 

I  am  aware,  indeed,  that  with  respect  to  either  of  the  treaties 
which  I  have  quoted,  it  is  possible  to  raise  a  question — whether, 
variation  of  circumstances  or  change  of  times  may  not  have  some- 
what relaxed  its  obligations.  The  Treaty  of  1661,  it  might  be 
said,  was  so  loose  and  prodigal  in  the  wording — it  is  so  unreason- 
able, so  wholly  out  of  nature,  that  any  one  country  should  be  ex- 
pected to  defend  another,  "  even  as  itself;"  such  stipulations  are 
of  so  exaggerated  a  character,  as  to  resemble  effusions  of  feeling, 
rather  than  enunciations  of  deliberate  compact.  Again,  with  re- 
spect to  the  Treaty  of  1703,  if  the  case  rested  on  that  treaty  alone, 
a  question  might  be  raised,  whether  or  not,  when  one  of  the  con- 
tracting parties — Holland — had  since  so  changed  her  relations 
with  Portugal,  as  to  consider  her  obligations  under  the  Treaty  of 
1703  as  obsolete — whether  or  not,  I  say,  under  such  circumstances, 
the  obligation  on  the  remaining  party  be  not  likewise  void.  I 
should  not  hesitate  to  answer  both  these  objections  in  the  nega- 
tive. But  without  entering  into  such  a  controversy,  it  is  suffi- 
cient for  me  to  say,  that  the  time  and  place  for  taking  such  objec- 
tions, was  at  the  Congress  at  Vienna.  Then  and  there  it  was,  that 
if  you  indeed  considered  these  treaties  as  obsolete,  you  ought 
frankly  and  fearlessly  to  have  declared  them  to  be  so.  But  then 
and  there,  with  your  eyes  open,  and  in  the  face  of  all  modern  Eu- 
rope, you  proclaimed  anew  the  ancient  treaties  of  alliance,  friend- 
ship, and  guarantee,  "  so  long  subsisting  between  the  crowns  of 
Great  Britain  and  Portugal,"  as  still  "acknowledged  by  Great 
Britain,"  and  still  "  of  full  force  and  effect."  It  is  not,  bowever, 
on  specific  articles  alone — it  is  not  so  much,  perhaps,  on  eitbcr  of 
these  ancient  treaties,  taken  separately,  as  it  is  on  the  spirit  and 
understanding  of  the  whole  body  of  treaties,  of  which  the  es- 


448  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

sence  is  concentrated  and  preserved  in  the  Treaty  of  Vienna,  that 
we  acknowledge  in  Portugal  a  right  to  look  to  Great  Britain  as 
her  ally  and  defender. 

This,  Sir,  being  the  state,  morally  and  politically,  of  our  obliga- 
tions towards  Portugal,  it  is  obvious  that  when  Portugal,  in  appre- 
hension of  the  coming  storm,  called  on  Great  Britain  for  assist- 
ance, the  only  hesitation  on  our  part  could  be — not  whether  that 
assistance  was  due,  supposing  the  occasion  for  demanding  it  to 
arise,  but  simply,  whether  that  occasion — in  other  words,  whether 
the  casus  foederis  had  arisen. 

I  understand,  indeed,  that  in  some  quarters,  it  has  been  imputed 
to  His  Majesty's  Ministers,  that  an  extraordinary  delay  inter- 
vened between  the  taking  of  the  determination  to  give  assistance 
to  Portugal,  and  the  carrying  of  that  determination  into  effect. 
But  how  stands  the  fact?  On  Sunday,  the  3d  of  this  month,  we 
received  from  the  Portuguese  Ambassador  a  direct  and  forma!  de- 
mand of  assistance  against  a  hostile  aggression  from  Spain.  Our 
answer  was — that  although  rumours  had  reached  us  through 
France,  His  Majesty's  Government  had  not  that  accurate  informa- 
tion— that  official  and  precise  intelligence  of  facts — on  which  they 
could  properly  found  an  application  to  Parliament.  It  was  only 
on  last  Friday  night  that  this  precise  information  arrived.  On 
Saturday  His  Majesty's  confidential  servants  came  to  a  decision. 
On  Sunday  that  decision  received  the  sanction  of  His  Majesty. 
On  Monday  it  was  communicated  to  both  Houses  of  Parliament 
— and  this  day,  Sir,  at  the  hour  in  which  I  have  the  honour  of 
addressing  you — the  troops  are  on  their  march  for  embarkation. 

I  trust,  then,  Sir,  that  no  unseemly  delay  is  imputable  to  Gov- 
ernment. But,  undoubtedly,  on  the  other  hand,  when  the  claim 
of  Portugal  for  assistance — a  claim,  clear  indeed  in  justice,  but 
at  the  same  time  fearfully  spreading  in  its  possible  consequences, 
came  before  us,  it  was  the  duty  of  His  Majesty's  Government  to 
do  nothing  on  hearsay.  The  eventual  force  of  the  claim  was  ad- 
mitted; but  a  thorough  knowledge  of  facts  was  necessary  before 
the  compliance  with  that  claim  could  be  granted.  The  Govern- 
ment here  laboured  under  some  disadvantage.  The  rumours 
which  reached  us  through  Madrid  were  obviously  distorted,  to 
answer  partial  political  purposes;  and  the  intelligence  through  the 
press  of  France,  though  substantially  correct,  was,  in  particulars, 
vague  and  contradictory.  A  measure  of  grave  and  serious  mo- 
ment could  never  be  founded  on  such  authority;  nor  could  the 
Ministers  come  down  to  Parliament  until  they  had  a  confident  as- 
surance that  the  case  which  they  had  to  lay  before  the  Legislature 
was  true  in  all  its  parts. 

But  there  was  another  reason  which  induced  a  necessary  cau- 
tion.    In  former  instances,  when  Portugal  applied  to  this  country 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL.  449 

for  assistance,  the  whole  power  of  the  state  in  Portugal  was  vest- 
ed in  the  person  of  the  monarch.  The  expression  of  his  wish, 
the  manifestation  of  his  desire,  the  putting  forth  of  his  claim, 
was  sufficient  ground  for  immediate  and  decisive  action  on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain,  supposing  the  casus  foederis  to  be  made 
out.  But,  on  this  occasion,  inquiry  was  in  the  first  place  to  be 
made  whether,  according  to  the  new  Constitution  of  Portugal, 
the  call  upon  Great  Britain  was  made  with  the  consent  of  all  the 
powers  and  authorities  competent  to  make  it,  so  as  to  carry  with 
it  an  assurance  of  that  reception  in  Portugal  for  our  army,  which 
the  army  of  a  friend  and  ally  had  a  right  to  expect.  Before  a 
British  soldier  should  put  his  foot  on  Portuguese  ground,  nay, 
before  he  should  leave  the  shores  of  England,  it  was  our  duty  to 
ascertain  that  the  step  taken  by  the  Regency  of  Portugal  was 
taken  with  the  cordial  concurrence  of  the  Legislature  of  that 
country.  It  was  but  this  morning  that  we  received  intelligence 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Chambers  at  Lisbon,  which  establishes 
the  fact  of  such  concurrence.  This  intelligence  is  contained  in  a 
despatch  from  Sir  W.  A'Court,  dated  29th  of  November,  of 
which  I  will  read  an  extract  to  the  House.  "  The  day  after  the 
news  arrived  of  the  entry  of  the  rebels  into  Portugal,  the  Minis- 
ters demanded  from  the  Chambers  an  extension  of  power  for  the 
Executive  Government;  and  the  permission  to  apply  for  foreign 
succours,  in  virtue  of  ancient  treaties,  in  the  event  of  their  being 
deemed  necessary.  The  Deputies  gave  the  requisite  authority  by 
acclamation;  and  an  equally  good  spirit  was  manifested  by  the 
peers,  who  granted  every  power  that  the  Ministers  could  possibly 
require.  They  even  went  further,  and  rising  in  a  body  from  their 
seats,  declared  their  devotion  to  their  country,  and  their  readiness 
to  give  their  personal  services,  if  necessary,  to  repel  any  hostile 
invasion.  The  Duke  de  Cadaval,  President  of  the  Chamber,  was 
the  first  to  make  this  declaration:  and  the  Minister  who  described 
this  proceeding  to  me,  said  it  was  a  movement  worthy  of  the 
good  days  of  Portugal!" 

I  have  thus  incidentally  disposed  of  the  supposed  imputation 
of  delay  in  complying  with  the  requisition  of  the  Portuguese 
Government.  The  main  question,  however,  is  this — Was  it  obli- 
gatory upon  us  to  comply  with  that  requisition?  In  other  words, 
had  the  casus  fmderis  arisen?  In  our  opinion  it  had.  Bands  of 
Portuguese  rebels,  armed,  equipped,  and  trained  in  Spain,  had 
crossed  the  Spanish  frontier,  carrying  terror  and  devastation  into 
their  own  country,  and  proclaiming  sometimes  the  brother  of  the 
reigning  sovereign  of  Portugal,  sometimes  a  Spanish  Princess, 
and  sometimes  even  Ferdinand  of  Spain,  as  the  rightful  occupant 
of  the  Portuguese  throne.  These  rebels  crossed  the  frontier,  not 
at  one  point  only,  but  at  several  points:  for  it  is  remarkahle  that 
59  oo* 


450  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

the  aggression,  on  which  the  original  application  to  Great  Britain 
for  succour  was  founded,  is  not  the  aggression  with  reference  to 
which  that  application  has  been  complied  with. 

The  attack  announced  by  the  French  newspapers  was  on  the 
north  of  Portugal,  in  the  province  of  Tras-os-Montes;  an  official 
account  of  which  has  been  received  by  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment only  this  day.  But  on  Friday  an  account  was  received  of 
an  invasion  in  the  south  of  Portugal,  and  of  the  capture  of  Villa 
Viciosa,  a  town  lying  on  the  road  from  the  southern  frontier  to 
Lisbon.  This  new  fact  established  even  more  satisfactorily  than 
a  mere  confirmation  of  the  attack  first  complained  of  would  have 
done,  the  systematic  nature  of  the  aggression  of  Spain  against 
Portugal.  One  hostile  irruption  might  have  been  made  by  some 
single  corps  escaping  from  their  quarters, — by  some  body  of 
stragglers,  who  might  have  evaded  the  vigilance  of  Spanish  au- 
thorities; and  one  such  accidental  and  unconnected  act  of  vio- 
lence might  not  have  been  conclusive  evidence  of  cognizance  and 
design  on  the  part  of  those  authorities;  but  when  a  series  of  at- 
tacks are  made  along  the  whole  line  of  a  frontier,  it  is  difficult  to 
deny  that  such  multiplied  instances  of  hostility  are  evidence  of 
concerted  aggression. 

If  a  single  company  of  Spanish  soldiers  had  crossed  the  fron- 
tier in  hostile  array,  there  could  not,  it  is  presumed,  be  a  doubt  as 
to  the  character  of  that  invasion.  Shall  bodies  of  men,  armed, 
clothed,  and  regimented  by  Spain,  carry  fire  and  sword  into  the 
bosom  of  her  unoffending  neighbour,  and  shall  it  be  pretended 
that  no  attack,  no  invasion  has  taken  place,  because,  forsooth, 
these  outrages  are  committed  against  Portugal  by  men  to  whom 
Portugal  had  given  birth  and  nurture?  What  petty  quibbling 
would  it  be  to  say,  that  an  invasion  of  Portugal  from  Spain  was 
not  a  Spanish  invasion,  because  Spain  did  not  employ  her  own 
troops,  but  hired  mercenaries  to  effect  her  purpose?  And  what 
difference  is  it,  except  as  aggravation,  that  the  mercenaries  in  this 
instance  were  natives  of  Portugal  ? 

I  have  already  stated,  and  I  now  repeat,  that  it  never  has  been 
the  wish  or  the  pretension  of  the  British  Government  to  inter- 
fere in  the  internal  concerns  of  the  Portuguese  nation.  Questions 
of  that  kind  the  Portuguese  nation  must  settle  among  themselves. 
But  if  we  were  to  admit  that  hordes  of  traitorous  refugees  from 
Portugal,  with  Spanish  arms — or  arms  furnished  or  restored  to 
them  by  Spanish  authorities — in  their  hands,  might  put  off  their 
country  for  one  purpose,  and  put  it  on  again  for  another — put  it 
off  for  the  purpose  of  attack,  and  put  it  on  again  for  the  purpose 
of  impunity — if,  I  say,  we  were  to  admit  this  juggle,  and  either 
pretend  to  be  deceived  by  it  ourselves,  or  attempt  to  deceive  Por- 
tugal, into  a  belief  that  there  was  nothing  of  external  attack,  no- 


AFFAIRS   OF  PORTUGAL.  451 

thing  of  foreign  hostility,  in  such  a  system  of  aggression — such 
pretence  and  attempt  would  perhaps  be  only  ridiculous  and  con- 
temptible; if  they  did  not  require  a  much  more  serious  character 
from  being  employed  as  an  excuse  for  infidelity  to  ancient  friend- 
ship, and  as  a  pretext  for  getting  rid  of  the  positive  stipulations 
of  treaties. 

This,  then,  is  the  case  which  I  lay  before  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. Here  is,  on  the  one  hand,  an  undoubted  pledge  of  national 
faith — not  taken  in  a  corner — not  kept  secret  between  the  parties 
— but  publicly  recorded  amongst  the  annals  of  history,  in  the 
face  of  the  world.  Here  are,  on  the  other  hand,  undeniable  acts 
of  foreign  aggression,  perpetrated,  indeed,  principally  through 
the  instrumentality  of  domestic  traitors;  but  supported  with  for- 
eign means,  instigated  by  foreign  councils,  and  directed  to  foreign 
ends.  Putting  these  facts  and  this  pledge  together,  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  His  Majesty  should  refuse  the  call  that  has  been  made 
upon  him;  nor  can  Parliament,  I  am  convinced,  refuse  to  enable 
His  Majesty  to  fulfil  his  undoubted  obligations.  I  am  willing  to 
rest  the  whole  question  of  to-night,  and  to  call  for  the  vote  of  the 
House  of  Commons  upon  this  simple  case,  divested  altogether  of 
collateral  circumstances;  from  which  I  especially  wish  to  separate 
it,  in  the  minds  of  those  who  hear  me,  and  also  in  the  minds  of 
others,  to  whom  what  I  now  say  will  find  its  way.  If  I  were  to 
sit  down  this  moment,  without  adding  another  word,  I  have  no 
doubt  but  that  I  should  have  the  concurrence  of  the  House  in  the 
Address  which  I  mean  to  propose. 

When  I  state  this,  it  will  be  obvious  to  the  House,  that  the  vote 
for  which  I  am  about  to  call  upon  them,  is  a  vote  for  the  defence 
of  Portugal,  not  a  vote  for  war  against  Spain.  I  beg  the  House 
to  keep  these  two  points  entirely  distinct  in  their  consideration. 
For  the  former  I  think  I  have  said  enough.  If,  in  what  I  have 
now  farther  to  say,  I  should  bear  hard  upon  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment, I  beg  that  it  may  be  observed,  that,  unjustifiable  as  I  shall 
show  their  conduct  to  have  been — contrary  to  the  law  of  nations, 
contrary  to  the  law  of  good  neighbourhood,  contrary,  I  might 
say,  to  the  laws  of  God  and  man — with  respect  to  Portugal — still 
I  do  not  mean  to  preclude  a  locus pcenitentise,  a  possibility  of  re- 
dress and  reparation.  It  is  our  duty  to  fly  to  the  defence  of  Por- 
tugal — be  the  assailant  who  he  may.  And,  be  it  remembered, 
that,  in  thus  fulfilling  the  stipulation  of  ancient  treaties,  of  the  ex- 
istence and  obligation  of  which  all  the  world  are  aware,  we,  ac- 
cording to  the  universally  admitted  construction  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions, neither  make  war  upon  that  assailant,  nor  give  to  that  as- 
sailant, much  less  to  any  other  power,  just  cause  of  war  against 
ourselves. 

Sir,  the  present  situation  of  Portugal   is  so  anomalous,  and  the 


452  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

recent  years  of  her  history  are  crowded  with  events  so  unusual, 
that  the  House  will,  perhaps,  not  think  that  I  am  unprofitably 
wasting  its  time,  if  I  take  the  liberty  of  calling  its  attention  short- 
ly and  succinctly  to  those  events,  and  to  their  influence  on  the  po- 
litical relations  of  Europe.  It  is  known  that  the  consequence  of 
the  residence  of  the  King  of  Portugal  in  Brazil,  was  to  raise  the 
latter  country  from  a  colonial  to  a  metropolitan  condition;  and  that 
from  the  time  when  the  King  began  to  contemplate  his  return  to 
Portugal,  there  grew  up  in  Brazil  a  desire  of  independence  that 
threatened  dissension,  if  not  something  like  civil  contest,  between 
the  European  and  American  dominions  of  the  House  of  Braganza. 
It  is  known  also  that  Great  Britain  undertook  a  mediation  between 
Portugal  and  Brazil,  and  induced  the  King  to  consent  to  a  separa- 
tion of  the  two  Crowns — confirming  that  of  Brazil  on  the  head 
of  his  eldest  son.  The  ink  with  which  this  agreement  was 
written  was  scarcely  dry,  when  the  unexpected  death  of  the 
King  of  Portugal  produced  a  new  state  of  things,  which  re- 
united on  the  same  head  the  two  Crowns  which  it  had  been  the 
policy  of  England,  as  well  as  of  Portugal  and  of  Brazil  to  sepa- 
rate. On  that  occasion,  Great  Britain,  and  another  European 
Court  closely  connected  with  Brazil,  tendered  advice  to  the  Em- 
peror of  Brazil,  now  become  King  of  Portugal,  which  advice  it 
cannot  be  accurately  said  that  His  Imperial  Majesty  followed,  be- 
cause he  had  decided  for  himself  before  it  reached  Rio  de  Janeiro; 
but  in  conformity  with  which  advice,  though  not  in  consequence 
of  it,  His  Imperial  Majesty  determined  to  abdicate  the  Crown  of 
Portugal  in  favour  of  his  eldest  daughter.  But  the  Emperor  of 
Brazil  had  done  more.  What  had  not  been  foreseen — what 
would  have  been  beyond  the  province  of  any  foreign  power  to 
advise — His  Imperial  Majesty  had  accompanied  his  abdication  of 
the  Crown  of  Portugal  with  the  grant  of  a  free  constitutional  char- 
ter for  that  kingdom. 

It  has  been  surmised  that  this  measure,  as  well  as  the  abdication 
which  it  accompanied,  was  the  offspring  of  our  advice.  No  such 
thing — Great  Britain  did  not  suggest  this  measure.  It  is  not  her 
duty  nor  her  practice  to  offer  suggestions  for  the  internal  regula- 
tion of  foreign  states.  She  neither  approved  nor  disapproved  of 
the  grant  of  a  constitutional  charter  to  Portugal:  her  opinion  upon 
that  grant  was  never  required.  True  it  is,  that  the  instrument  of 
the  constitutional  charter  was  brought  to  Europe  by  a  gentleman 
of  high  trust  in  the  service  of  the  British  Government.  Sir  C. 
Stuart  had  gone  to  Brazil  to  negotiate  the  separation  between  that 
country  and  Portugal.  In  addition  to  his  character  of  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  Great  Britain,  as  the  mediating  power,  he  had  also 
been  invested  by  the  King  of  Portugal  with  the  character  of  His 
Most  Faithful  Majesty's  Plenipotentiary  for  the  negotiation  with 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL.  453 

Brazil.  That  negotiation  had  been  brought  to  a  happy  conclusion; 
and  therewith  the  British  part  of  Sir  C.  Stuart's  commission  had 
terminated.  But  Sir  C.  Stuart  was  still  resident  at  Rio  de  Janeiro, 
as  the  Plenipotentiary  of  the  King  of  Portugal,  for  negotiating 
commercial  arrangements  between  Portugal  and  Brazil.  In  this 
latter  character  it  was,  that  Sir  C.  Stuart,  on  his  return  to  Europe, 
was  requested  by  the  Emperor  of  Brazil  to  be  the  bearer  to  Por- 
tugal of  the  new  constitutional  charter.  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment found  no  fault  with  Sir  C.  Stuart  for  executing  this  commis- 
sion: but  it  was  immediately  felt,  that  if  Sir  C.  Stuart  were  allowed 
to  remain  at  Lisbon,  it  might  appear,  in  the  eyes  of  Europe, 
that  England  was  the  contriver  and  imposer  of  the  Portuguese 
Constitution.  Sir  C.  Stuart  was,  therefore,  directed  to  return 
home  forthwith:  in  order  that  the  Constitution,  if  carried  into  ef- 
fect there,  might  plainly  appear  to  be  adopted  by  the  Portuguese 
nation  itself,  not  forced  upon  them  by  English  interference. 

As  to  the  merits,  Sir,  of  the  new  Constitution  of  Portugal,  I 
have  neither  the  intention,  nor  the  right  to  offer  any  opinion.  Per- 
sonally, I  may  have  formed  one;  but  as  an  English  Minister,  all  I 
have  to  say  is, — "  May  God  prosper  this  attempt  at  the  establish- 
ment of  constitutional  liberty  in  Portugal!  and  may  that  nation 
be  found  as  fit  to  enjoy  and  to  cherish  its  new-born  privileges,  as 
it  has  often  proved  itself  capable  of  discharging  its  duties  amongst 
the  nations  of  the  world!" 

I,  Sir,  am  neither  the  champion  nor  the  critic  of  the  Portuguese 
Constitution.  But  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  have  proceeded 
from  a  legitimate  source — a  consideration  which  has  mainly  re- 
conciled continental  Europe  to  its  establishment:  and  to  us,  as 
Englishmen,  it  is  recommended,  by  the  ready  acceptance  which 
it  has  met  with  from  all  orders  of  the  Portuguese  people.  To 
that  Constitution,  therefore,  thus  unquestioned  in  its  origin,  even 
by  those  who  are  most  jealous  of  new  institutions — to  that  Con- 
stitution, thus  sanctioned  in  its  outset  by  the  glad  and  grateful  ac- 
clamations of  those  who  are  destined  to  live  under  it — to  that 
Constitution,  founded  on  principles  in  a  great  degree  similar  to 
those  of  our  own,  though  differently  modified — it  is  impossible 
that  Englishmen  should  not  wish  well.  But  it  would  not  be  for  us 
to  force  that  Constitution  on  the  people  of  Portugal,  if  they  were 
unwilling  to  receive  it,  or  if  any  schism  should  exist  amongst  the 
Portuguese  ili<:mselves,  as  to  its  fitness  and  congeniality  to  the 
wants  and  wishes  of  the  nation.  It  is  no  business  of  ours  to  fight 
its  battles.  Wc  go  to  Portugal  in  the  discharge  of  a  sacred  obli- 
gation, contracted  under  ancient  and  modern  treaties.  When 
there,  nothing  shall  be  done  by  us  to  enforce  the  establishment  of 
the  Constitution; — but  we  must  take  care  that  nothing  shall  be 
done  by  others  to  prevent  it  from  being  fairly  carried  into  effect. 


454  KING'S   MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

Internally,  let  the  Portuguese  settle  their  own  affairs;  but  with  re- 
spect to  external  force,  while  Great  Britain  has  an  arm  to  raise,  it 
must  he  raised  against  the  efforts  of  any  Power  that  should  at- 
tempt forcibly  to  control  the  choice,  and  fetter  the  independence 
of  Portugal. 

Has  such  been  the  intention  of  Spain?  Whether  the  proceed- 
ings which  have  lately  been  practised  or  permitted  in  Spain,  were 
acts  of  a  Government  exercising  the  usual  power  of  prudence  and 
foresight,  (without  which,  a  Government  is,  for  the  good  of  the 
people  which  live  under  it,  no  Government  at  all,)  or  whether 
they  were  the  acts  of  some  secret  illegitimate  Power — of  some 
furious  fanatical  faction,  over-riding  the  counsels  of  the  ostensible 
Government,  defying  it  in  the  capital,  and  disobeying  it  on  the 
frontiers — I  will  not  stop  to  inquire.  It  is  indifferent  to  Portugal, 
smarting  under  her  wrongs — it  is  indifferent  to  England,  who  is 
called  upon  .to  avenge  them — whether  the  present  state  of  things 
be  the  result  of  the  intrigues  of  a  faction,  over  which,  if  the 
Spanish  Government  has  no  control,  it  ought  to  assume  one  as 
soon  as  possible — or  of  local  authorities,  over  whom  it  has  con- 
trol, and  for  whose  acts  it  must,  therefore,  be  held  responsible.  It 
matters  not,  I  say,  from  which  of  these  sources  the  evil  has  arisen, 
In  either  case,  Portugal  must  be  protected;  and  from  England  that 
protection  is  due. 

It  would  be  unjust,  however,  to  the  Spanish  Government,  to 
say,  that  it  is  only  amongst  the  members  of  that  Government  that 
an  unconquerable  hatred  of  liberal  institutions  exists  in  Spain. 
However  incredible  the  phenomenon  may  appear  in  this  couutry, 
I  am  persuaded  that  a  vast  majority  of  the  Spanish  nation  enter- 
tain a  decided  attachment  to  arbitrary  power,  and  a  predilection 
for  absolute  government.  The  more  liberal  institutions  of  coun- 
tries in  the  neighbourhood  have  not  yet  extended  their  influence 
into  Spain,  nor  awakened  any  sympathy  in  the  mass  of  the  Span- 
ish people.  Whether  the  public  authorities  of  Spain  did  or  did 
not  partake  of  the  national  sentiment,  there  would  almost  neces- 
sarily grow  up  between  Portugal  and  Spain,  under  present  cir- 
cumstances, an  opposition  of  feelings,  which  it  would  not  require 
the  authority  or  the  suggestions  of  the  Government  to  excite  and 
stimulate  into  action.  Without  blame,  therefore,  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  Spain, — out  of  the  natural  antipathy  between  the  two 
neighbouring  nations — the  one  prizing  its  recent  freedom,  the 
other  hugging  its  traditionary  servitude — there  might  arise  mu- 
tual provocations,  and  reciprocal  injuries  which,  perhaps,  even  the 
most  active  and  vigilant  ministry  could  not  altogether  restrain.  I 
am  inclined  to  believe  that  such  has  been,  in  part  at  least,  the  ori- 
gin of  the  differences  between  Spain  and  Portugal.  That  in  their 
progress  they  have  been  adopted,  matured,  methodized,  combined, 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL.  455 

and  brought  into  more  perfect  action,  by  some  authority  more 
united  and  more  efficient  than  the  mere  feeling  disseminated 
through  the  mass  of  the  community,  is  certain;  but  I  do  believe 
their  origin  to  have  been  as  much  in  the  real  sentiment  of  the 
Spanish  population,  as  in  the  opinion  or  contrivance  of  the  Gov- 
ernment itself. 

Whether  this  be  or  be  not  the  case,  is  precisely  the  question 
between  us  and  Spain.  If,  though  partaking  in  the  general  feel- 
ings of  the  Spanish  nation,  the  Spanish  Government  has,  never- 
theless, done  nothing  to  embody  those  feelings,  and  to  direct 
them  hostilely  against  Portugal;  if  all  that  has  occurred  on  the 
frontiers,  has  occurred  only  because  the  vigilance  of  the  Spanish 
Government  has  been  surprised,  its  confidence  betrayed,  and  its 
orders  neglected — if  its  engagements  have  been  repeatedly  and 
shamefully  violated,  not  by  its  own  good  will,  but  against  its  re- 
commendation and  desire — let  us  see  some  symptoms  of  disap- 
;  probation,  some  signs  of  repentance,  some  measures  indicative  of 
sorrow  for  the  past,  and  of  sincerity  for  the  future.  In  that  case, 
His  Majesty's  Message,  to  which  I  propose  this  night  to  return 
an  answer  of  concurrence,  will  retain  the  character  which  I  have 
ascribed  to  it, — that  of  a  measure  of  defence  for  Portugal,  not  a 
measure  of  resentment  against  Spain. 

With  these  explanations  and  qualifications,  let  us  now  proceed 
to  the  review  of  facts.  Great  desertions  took  place  from  the  Por- 
tuguese army  into  Spain,  and  some  desertions  took  place  from  the 
Spanish  army  into  Portugal.  In  the  first  instance,  the  Portuguese 
authorities  were  taken  by  surprise;  but,  in  every  subsequent  in- 
stance, where  they  had  an  opportunity  of  exercising  a  discretion, 
it  is  hut  just  to  say,  that  they  uniformly  discouraged  the  deser- 
tions of  the  Spanish  soldiery. — There  exists  between  Spain  and 
Portugal  specific  treaties,  stipulating  the  mutual  surrender  of  de- 
serters. Portugal  had,  therefore,  a  right  to  claim  of  Spain  that 
every  Portuguese  deserter  should  be  forthwith  sent  back.  I 
hardly  know  whether  from  its  own  impulse,  or  in  consequence 
.of  our  advice,  the  Portuguese  Government  waved  its  right  under 
those  treaties;  very  wisely  reflecting,  that  it  would  be  highly  in- 
convenient to  be  placed  by  the  return  of  their  deserters,  in  the 
difficult  alternative  of  either  granting  a  dangerous  amnesty,  or 
ordering  numerous  executions.  The  Portuguese  Government, 
therefore,  signified  to  Spain  that  it  would  be  entirely  satisfied  if, 
instead  of  surrendering  the  deserters,  Spain  would  restore  their 
arms,  horses,  and  equipments;  and,  separating  the  men  from  their 
officers,  would  remove  both  from  the  frontiers  into  the  interior 
of  Spain.  Solemn  engagements  were  entered  into  by  the  Spanish 
Government  to  this  effect — first  with  Portugal,  next  with  France, 
and  afterwards  with  England.  Those  engagements,  concluded  one 


456  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

day,  were  violated  the  next.  The  deserters,  instead  of  being  dis- 
armed and  dispersed,  were  allowed  to  remain  congregated  to- 
gether near  the  frontiers  of  Portugal;  where  they  were  enrolled, 
trained,  and  disciplined,  for  the  expedition  which  they  have  since 
undertaken.  It  is  plain  that  in  these  proceedings,  there  was  per- 
fidy somewhere.  It  rests  with  the  Spanish  Government  to  show, 
that  it  was  not  with  them.  It  rests  with  the  Spanish  Government 
to  prove,  that  if  its  engagements  have  not  been  fulfilled — if  its 
intentions  have  been  eluded  and  unexecuted,  the  fault  has  not  been 
with  the  Government;  and  that  it  is  ready  to  make  every  repara- 
ion  in  its  power. 

I  have  said  that  these  promises  were  made  to  France  and  to 
Great  Britain,  as  well  as  to  Portugal.  I  should  do  a  great  injus- 
tice to  France  if  I  were  not  to  add,  that  the  representations  of 
that  Government  upon  this  point  with  the  Cabinet  of  Madrid, 
have  been  as  urgent,  and,  alas!  as  fruitless,  as  those  of  Great 
Britain.  Upon  the  first  irruption  into  the  Portuguese  territory, 
the  French  Government  testified  its  displeasure  by  instantly  re- 
calling its  Ambassador;  and  it  further  directed  its  Charge  d'Af- 
faires  to  signify  to  His  Catholic  Majesty,  that  Spain  was  not  to 
look  for  any  support  from  France  against  the  consequences  of 
this  aggression  upon  Portugal.  I  am  bound,  I  repeat,  in  justice 
to  the  French  Government,  to  state,  that  it  has  exerted  itself  to 
the  utmost,  in  urging  Spain  to  retrace  the  steps  which  she  has  so 
unfortunately  taken.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether  any  more 
efficient  course  might  have  been  adopted  to  give  effect  to  their  ex- 
hortations: but  as  to  the  sincerity  and  good  faith  of  the  exertions 
made  by  the  Government  of  France,  to  press  Spain  to  the  execu- 
tion of  her  engagements,  I  have  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt: — 
and  I  confidently  reckon  upon  their  continuance. 

It  will  be  for  Spain,  upon  knowledge  of  the  step  now  taken  by 
His  Majesty,  to  consider  in  what  way  she  will  meet  it.  The 
earnest  hope  and  wish  of  His  Majesty's  Government  is,  that  she 
may  meet  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  avert  any  ill  consequences  to 
herself,  from  the  measure  into  which  we  have  been  driven  by  the 
unjust  attack  upon  Portugal. 

Sir,  I  set  out  with  saying,  that  there  were  reasons  which  en- 
tirely satisfied  my  judgment  that  nothing  short  of  a  point  of  na- 
tional faith  or  national  honour,  would  justify  at  the  present  mo- 
ment, any  voluntary  approximation  to  the  possibility  of  war.  Let 
me  be  understood,  however,  distinctly,  as  not  meaning  to  say  that 
I  dread  war  in  a  good  cause,  (and  in  no  other  may  it  be  the  lot 
of  this  country  ever  to  engage!)  from  a  distrust  of  the  strength 
of  the  country  to  commence  it,  or  of  her  resources  to  maintain 
it.  I  dread  it,  indeed — but  upon  far  other  grounds:  I  dread  it 
from  an  apprehension  of   the  tremendous  consequences  which 


AFFAIRS   OF  PORTUGAL.  457 

might  arise  from  any  hostilities  in  which  we  might  now  be  en- 
gaged. Some  years  ago,  in  the  discussion  of  the  negotiations 
respecting  the  French  war  against  Spain,  I  took  the  liberty  of 
adverting  to  this  topic.  I  then  stated  that  the  position  of  this 
country  in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  was  one  of  neutrality, 
not  only  between  contending  nations,  but  between  conflicting  prin- 
ciples; and  that  it  was  by  neutrality  alone  that  wre  could  maintain 
that  balance,  the  preservation  of  which,  I  believed  to  be  essential 
to  the  welfare  of  mankind.  I  then  said,  that  I  feared  that  the 
next  war  which  should  be  kindled  in  Europe,  would  be  a  war  not 
so  much  of  armies,  as  of  opinions.  Not  four  years  have  elapsed, 
and  behold  my  apprehension  realized!  It  is,  to  be  sure,  within 
narrow  limits  that  this  war  of  opinion  is  at  present  confined:  but 
it  is  a  war  of  opinion,  that  Spain,  (whether  as  Government  or  as 
nation)  is  now  waging  against  Portugal;  it  is  a  war  which  has 
commenced  in  hatred  of  the  new  institutions  of  Portugal.  How 
long  is  it  reasonable  to  expect  that  Portugal  will  abstain  from  re- 
taliation ?  If  into  that  war  this  country  shall  be  compelled  to  en- 
ter, wre  shall  enter  into  it,  with  a  sincere  and  anxious  desire  to 
mitigate  rather  than  exasperate — and  to  mingle  only  in  the 
conflict  of  arms,  not  in  the  more  fatal  conflict  of  opinions.  But 
I  much  fear  that  this  country,  (however  earnestly  she  may  en- 
deavour to  avoid  it,)  could  not,  in  such  case,  avoid  seeing  ranked 
under  her  banners  all  the  restless  and  dissatisfied  of  any  nation 
with  which  she  might  come  in  conflict.  It  is  the  contemplation 
of  this  new  power  in  any  future  war,  which  excites  my  most 
anxious  apprehension.  It  is  one  thing  to  have  a  giant's  strength, 
but  it  would  be  another  to  use  it  like  a  giant.  The  consciousness 
of  such  strength  is,  undoubtedly  a  source  of  confidence  and  se- 
curity; but  in  the  situation  in  which  this  country  stands,  our 
business  is  not  to  seek  opportunities  of  displaying  it,  but  to  con- 
tent ourselves  with  letting  the  professors  of  violent  and  exagge- 
rated doctrines  on  both  sides  feel,  that  it  is  not  their  interest  to 
convert  an  umpire  into  an  adversary.  The  situation  of  England, 
amidst  the  struggle  of  political  opinions  which  agitates  more  or 
less  sensibly  different  countries  of  the  world,  may  be  compared 
to  that  of  the  Ruler  of  the  Winds,  as  described  by  the  poet: — 

"  Celsft.  sedet  iEolus  arce, 

Sceptra  tenens;  mollitque  animos  et  temperat  iras; 
Ni  faciat,  maria  ac  terras  ccjelumque  profundum 
Quippe  ferant  rapidi  secum,  verrantque  per  auras." 

The  consequence  of  letting  loose  the  passions  at  present  chained 
and  confined,  would  be  to  produce  a  scene  of  desolation  which 
no  man  can  contemplate  without  horror;  and  I  should  not  sleep 
easy  on  my  couch,  if  I  were  conscious  that  I  had  contributed  to 
precipitate  it  by  a  single  moment. 
60  pp 


45S  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

This,  then,  is  the  reason — a  reason  very  different  from  fear — 
the  reverse  of  a  consciousness  of  disability — why  I  dread  the  re- 
currence of  hostilities  in  any  part  of  Europe;  why  I  would  bear 
much,  and  would  forbear  long;  why  I  would  (as  I  have  said)  put 
up  with  almost  any  thing  that  did  not  touch  national  faith  and 
national  honour; — rather  than  let  slip  the  furies  of  war,  the  leash 
of  which  we  hold  in  our  hands — not  knowing  whom  they  may 
reach,  or  how  far  their  ravages  may  be  carried.  Such  is  the  love 
of  peace  which  the  British  Government  acknowledges;  and  such 
the  necessity  for  peace  which  the  circumstances  of  the  world  in- 
culcate.    I  will  push  these  topics  no  farther. 

I  return,  in  conclusion,  to  the  object  of  the  Address.  Let  us 
fly  to  the  aid  of  Portugal,  by  whomsoever  attacked;  because  it 
is  our  duty  to  do  so:  and  let  us  cease  our  interference  wThere  that 
duty  ends.  We  go  to  Portugal  not  to  rule,  not  to  dictate,  not  to 
prescribe  constitutions — but  to  defend  and  to  preserve  the  inde- 
pendence of  an  ally.  We  go  to  plant  the  standard  of  England 
on  the  well-known  heights  of  Lisbon.  Where  that  standard  is 
planted,  foreign  dominion  shall  not  come. 

The  Speaker  read  the  Address,  which  was  received  with  much  applause, 
and  put  the  question  that  it  be  adopted. 

Sir  Robert  Wilson — No  man  was  more  fully  persuaded  than  himself,  that, 
on  an  occasion  like  the  present,  His  Majesty  was  actuated  by  the  just  pride  of 
a  British  King,  conscious  that  he  was  ruling  a  people  who  esteemed  the  main- 
tenance of  good  faith  and  national  honour  the  brightest  gem  of  his  Crown. 
As,  however,  the  King  could  only  act  by  his  confidential  advisers,  he  (Sir  R. 
W.)  felt  great  anxiety  upon  this  subject,  and  knowing,  as  he  did,  the  unexam- 
pled treachery  and  continued  aggressions  by  Spain  upon  Portugal,  he  had  been 
unable  to  control  his  impatience,  and  had,  therefore,  given  notice  of  a  motion, 
the  chief  object  of  which  was  to  obtain  information.  After  the  statement  of 
to-nio-ht,  proving  at  once  the  vigour,  decision,  and  energy  of  Ministers,  his 
anxiety  only  was,  to  see  them  carry  their  own  purposes  into  execution,  and 
thus  save  him  the  pain  of  an  accusatory  attack.  At  the  same  time,  he  thought 
Great  Britain  was  bound  to  require  of  France  that  she  should  march  her  troops 
out  of  Spain,  as  a  first  step  to  the  defence  of  Portugal.  She  had  entered 
Spain  merely  to  release  the  King,  and  to  restore  peace,  and  that  object  had 
long  ago  been  accomplished. 

Mr.  Hume  opposed  the  Address,  principally  on  the  ground  that  this  country 
was  not  in  a  situation  to  enter  upon,  and  long  maintain  a  war  on  a  great  scale. 
He  further  contended,  that  war  should  not  be  entered  into,  unless  a  strong  case 
of  necessity  was  made  out.  He  had  the  admission  of  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  for  saying  this,  and  it  was  highly  inconsistent  in  him,  who  was  the 
advocate  of  this  doctrine  in  1823,  to  precipitate  the  country  into  a  war  now, 
without  either  affording  sufficient  time  for  deliberation,  or  establishing  a  case 
of  unavoidable  necessity  to  enter  into  it.  The  honourable  member  moved  an 
amendment,  "  that  the  House  be  called  over  this  day  week." 
Mr.  Wood,  (of  Preston,)  seconded  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Baring  observed,  that  when  the  possibility  of  our  being  soon  engaged 
in  a  war  came  to  be  considered,  he  had  much  dreaded  the  hazard  of  being 
plunged  into  a  war  on  one  day,  which  the  country  might  have  to  lament  on  an- 
other; and  he  had  been  most  anxious  that  some  means  of  evasion  could  have 


AFFAIRS  OF  rORTUCAL.  459 

been  found  out,  by  which  war  might  have  been  avoided.  But,  such  a  very 
strong  case  had  been  made  out,  that  he  was  not  surprised  at  the  approbation 
with  which  the  proposition  of  this  night  had  been  almost  unanimously  received. 
He  asked  what  great  nation  had  ever  accomplished  any  valuable  purpose  by  an 
over  submissive  and  pusillanimous  policy !  They  need  not  talk  to  him  about 
a  property  tax,  and  bank  restriction  acts.  The  question  was,  whether  our  faith 
was  bound!  and  if  it  was,  then  we  must  fulfil  our  obligations.  If  the  House 
had  the  baseness  to  declare  itself  broken-hearted,  and  afraid  of  war,  sure  he 
was  that  such  a  resolution  would  be  disgusting  and  revolting  to  the  feelings  of 
the  country.  But  still  he  confessed  he  could  not  understand  how  we  could 
fully  discharge  our  duty  to  Portugal,  and  yet  avoid  committing  aggressions  on 
Spain.  Suppose  Government  were  to  send  out  Mina  with  a  train  of  artillery, 
would  not  that  be  an  aggression  on  Spain  ?  In  addition  to  the  general  question, 
as  one  of  public  faith,  there  was  another  consideration  important  to  this  country. 
No  doubt  we  were  bound  to  Portugal  by  solemn  engagements,  from  which, 
whether  burthensome  or  not,  it  was  impossible  for  us  at  this  moment  to  release 
ourselves.  But,  if  we  were  not,  it  would  not  the  less  be  a  great  essential  para- 
mount act  of  policy  on  the  part  of  this  country  to  maintain  and  uphold  the  in- 
dependence of  Portugal.  He  had  viewed,  with  the  greatest  possible  jealousy 
and  disgust,  the  state  in  which  the  Peninsula  had  been  during  the  last  four 
years.  He  could  not  help  regretting  that  Government  had  looked  so  passive- 
ly on  the  invasion  of  Spain  in  1823.  If,  at  that  time,  the  same  resolution 
had  been  shown  in  the  case  of  Spain,  as  was  at  this  time  in  the  case  of  Portu- 
gal, Europe  would  have  been  saved  from  that  calamity,  into  which,  at  some 
time  or  other,  he  firmly  believed  that  invasion  would  draw  it.  The  French 
Minister,  it  appeared,  had  left  Madrid;  all  the  forms  had  been  duly  gone 
through ;  the  only  question  was,  the  sincerity  of  the  French  Government.  He 
suspected  there  was  a  party  behind,  whether  French  or  Russian,  he  knew  not, 
telling  the  Spanish  party,  "Never  mind  what  we  say,  we  are  really  your 
friends  and  will  back  you."  Whether  France  was  sincere  or  not,  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  British  Government  to  take  the  course  that  good  faith  marked 
out  to  it.  The  resources  of  the  country  had  been  alluded  to ;  but  that  was  a 
question  which,  on  such  an  occasion  as  this,  could  never  be  raised  while  the 
country  remained  a  power  worth  speaking  of.  When  a  case  was  fairly  made 
out,  involving  our  honour,  it  was  impossible  to  suffer  any  consideration  to  be 
put  in  competition  with  it  But  he  could  not  view  the  possession  of  Spain  by 
France,  continued  year  after  year,  without  feeling  that  it  was  extremely  dan- 
gerous to  this  country.  Spain  was  evidently  just  as  far  from  getting  rid  of  her 
subjection  to  France,  as  she  was  the  first  year  of  her  occupation.  If,  then, 
this  country  suffered  the  invasion  of  Portugal,  the  whole  coast  of  the  Penin- 
sula would  tall  under  the  influence  of  France;  and  thus  Portugal,  through 
Spain,  and  Spain  through  France,  would  be  under  subjection  to  that  power 
from  which  England  had  the  most  dread.  The  friendly  disposition  of  any 
country  was  but  a  bad  security  for  the  national  interests  of  this.  We  had  the 
assurance  of  France  that  that  power  would  remain  at  peace;  but  that  was 
what  he  would  not  be  satisfied  with.  Could  he  trust  to  the  family  of  Bourbon 
to  refrain  from  effecting  that  which  had  constituted  the  highest  object  of  the 
ambition  of  Louis  XIV.,  and  afterwards  of  Napoleon,  and  which  at  this  time 
seemed  almost  secured  to  them  by  accident,  perhaps,  but  he  believed  also  in 
some  degree  by  design  7  To  what  degree  the  war,  once  commenced,  might 
spread,  in  point  of  expense  and  extent,  there  was  no  saying  beforehand.  He 
did  not  apprehend  it  would  be  of  any  very  enormous  description;  and  when 
the  House  bore  in  mind  the  taxes  repealed  since  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  he 
denied  that  the  pressure  at  this  time  could  be  such  as  to  render  us  incapable  of 
bearing  the  burthens  war  would  bring  upon  us.  The  right  honourable  gentle- 
man, lie  was  satisfied,  had  taken  the  only  course  that  was  open  to  him. 


460  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

Mr.  Bankes,  senior,  was  of  opinion  that  the  House  should  be  assured  that 
the  war  was  quite  indispensable,  before  they  rushed  into  it.  Not  all  the  elo- 
quence of  the  right  honourable  Secretary  had  satisfied  him  that  that  was  the 
case.  The  disturbances  in  Portugal  were  of  a  political  character,  and  connect- 
ed with  its  internal  arrangements.  He  did  not  shrink  from  war  because  he 
despaired  of  the  resources  of  the  country,  and,  therefore,  he  would  not  sup- 
port the  amendment,  but  neither  could  he  vote  for  the  original  motion. 

Mr.  Brougham  supported  the  Address  in  an  eloquent  and  impressive  speech. 
Adverting  to  the  ground  on  which  the  amendment  was  principally  supported, 
he  said,  "  The  honourable  members  (Messrs.  Hume  and  Wood)  must  recollect, 
and  the  House  and  the  country  must  bear  in  mind,  that  the  question  is  not  at 
present  whether,  even  at  the  expense  of  your  character  for  good  faith,  you  will 
consent  to  bear  hereafter  among  mankind  a  stained  reputation,  and  a  forfeited 
honour.     The  question  is  not  whether  you  will  do  so,  and  by  so  doing  avert  a 
war.     I  should  say  no,  even  if  this  choice  were  within  your  reach;  but  the 
question  is,  whether,  for  a  little  season  of  miserable,  insecure,  precarious,  dis- 
honourable, unbearable  truce — I  cannot  call  it  peace,  for  it  has  nothing  of  the 
honour  and  the  comfort  which  make  the  name  of  peace  proverbially  sweet — I 
say,  the  question  is,  whether  for  this  wretched,  precarious,  disgusting,  and  in- 
tolerable postponement  of  hostilities,  you  will  be  content  hereafter  to  have  re- 
course to  war,  when  war  can  no  longer  be  avoided,  and  when  its  horrors  will 
fall  upon  you— degraded  and  ruined  in  character  in  the  eyes  of  ail  the  nations 
of  Europe,  and,  what  is  ten  thousand  times  worse,  degraded  and  ruined  in  your 
own.     I  say,  Sir,  degraded  and  ruined   in  reputation,  and  what  may  appear 
worse  to  those  to  whose  minds  such  topics  do  not  find  so  easy  an  access,  the 
war  will  fall  with  tenfold  weight  upon  our  resources;  for  a  small  sum  spent 
now  in  due  time,  may  be  the  means  of  saving-  us  an  expenditure  of  ten  times 
that  amount,  with  interest — aye,  and  compound  interest  accumulated  upon  it. 
The  risking  of  a  thousand  men,  dreadful  as  the  alternative  is,  may  prevent  the 
renewal  of  the  horrors  of  war  on  a  more  extended  scale;  it  may  avert  a  war 
in  which  we  may  have  to  engage  hereafter  with  crippled  resources — a  war  of 
boundless  expenditure,  in  which  other  powers,  as  well  as  Spain,  may  be  pre- 
pared to  take  part;  a  war,  of  which  it  may  indeed  be  said,  that  when  it  is  once 
begun  no  man  can  pretend  to  prescribe  its  limits.     I  entirely  agree  in  all  that 
has  been  said  of  the  hazards  and  difficulties  inseparable  from  war,  and  I  was  cer- 
tainly one  of  those  who  held,  some  years  ago,  that  looking  to  the  burthens  un- 
der which  this  country  laboured,  we  were  under  severe  recognizances  to  keep 
the  peace.    I  know  the  severity  of  these  burthens;  but  if  I  feel  their  weight — 
if  I  feel  apprehensive  (as  who  must  not?)  of  their  effect,  in  case  this  most  ne- 
cessary measure — a  measure  which,  upon  all   reasonable  probabilities,  must 
prove  effectual — should  unhappily  fail,  I  cannot  but  rely  on  those  sound,  en- 
lightened, liberal,  and  truly  English  principles — principles  worthy  of  our  best 
times,  and  of  our  most  distinguished  statesmen,  which  now  govern  the  councils 
of  this  country  in  her  foreign  policy,  and  inspire  the  eloquence  of  the  right 
honourable  Secretary  with  a  degree  of  fervour,  energy,  and  effect,  extraordi- 
nary and  unprecedented  in  this  House— unprecedented  (I  can  give  it  no  higher 
praise)  even  in  the  eloquence  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman.     I  feel  that 
in  these  principles,  now  adopted  and  avowed  by  the  organs  of  our  Government, 
we  have  a  strong  and  impregnable  bulwark,  which  will  enable  us  not  only  to 
support  our  burthens,  and,  should  the  day  of  trial  come  upon  us,  to  meet'the 
combined  world  in  arms,  but  which  will  afford  the  strongest  practical  security 
against   future   danger,   and   render   it   eminently  improbable  that  we   shall 
ever  have  that  combined  world  to  contend  with,  so  long  as  those  principles  are 
maintained.     Our  burthens  may  remain,  but  our  Government  know  that  when 
the  voice  of  the  people  is  in  their  favour,  they  have  a  lever,  if  not  within  their 
hands,  within  their  grasp.     I  will  ijnitate  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary,  and 


AFFAIRS   OF  PORTUGAL.  461 

go  no  further.  We  know,  because  we  have  experienced,  the  extent  of  that 
power;  our  enemies  that  would  be,  but  who,  on  this  account,  will  not  be  so, 
know  it,  because  they  see  its  effect  here,  and  dread  its  effect  among  them- 
selves. If,  however,  that  catastrophe,  which  His  Majesty's  Ministers  have 
taken  the  best  means  to  avert,  and  which,  in  all  human  probability,  will  be 
averted,  should  unhappily  fall  upon  us,  whatever  may  be  our  burtnens,  what- 
ever may  be  the  difficulties  with  which  we  may  have  to  contend,  let  but  His 
Majesty's  Government  act  steadily  up  to  the  principles  they  have  avowed,  and 
let  the  country  but  remain  true  to  itself,  and  I  have  no  fear  of  the  rest. 

Mr.  Bright  contended  that  no  act  of  aggression  against  Portugal  had  been 
avowed  by  Spain,  and  that  consequently  no  casus  foederis  existed,  and  we  were 
not  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty  to  embark  in  hostilities.  The  occupation 
of  Portugal  by  5000  men  would  amount  to  nothing  more  than  an  armed  neu- 
trality. Now,  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  we  were  only  bound  to  assist  Por- 
tugaf  in  the  event  of  actual  hostilities  having  been  commenced,  and  then  we 
were  bound  to  attack  Spain  with  all  our  might. 


MR.  CANNING'S  REPLY. 

I  rise,  Sir,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  few  observations,  not 
so  much  in  answer  to  any  general  arguments,  as  in  reply  to  two 
or  three  particular  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  the 
Address  which  I  have  had  the  honour  to  propose  to  the  House. 

In  the  first  place,  I  frankly  admit  to  my  honourable  friend  (Mr. 
Bankes,)  the  member  for  Dorsetshire,  that  I  have  understated  the 
case  against  Spain — I  have  done  so  designedly — I  warned  the 
House  that  I  would  do  so — because  I  wished  no  further  to  impeach 
the  conduct  of  Spain,  than  was  necessary  for  establishing  the  casus 
foederis  on  behalf  of  Portugal.  To  have  gone  further — to  have 
made  a  full  statement  of  the  case  against  Spain — would  have  been 
to  preclude  the  very  object  which  I  have  in  view;  that  of  enabling 
Spain  to  preserve  peace  without  dishonour. 

The  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Bright)  who  spoke  last,  in- 
deed, in  his  extreme  love  for  peace,  proposes  expedients  which, 
as  it  appears  to  me,  would  render  war  inevitable.  He  would  avoid 
interference  at  this  moment,  when  Spain  may  be  yet  hesitating  as  to 
the  course  which  she  shall  adopt;  and  the  language  which  he  would 
hold  to  Spain  is,  in  effect,  this — "  You  have  not  yet  done  enough 
to  implicate  British  faith,  and  to  provoke  British  honour.  You 
have  not  done  enough,  in  merely  enabling  Portuguese  rebels  to 
invade  Portugal,  and  to  carry  destruction  into  her  cities;  you  have 
not  done  enough  in  combining  knots  of  traitors,  whom,  after  the 
most  solemn  engagements  to  disarm  and  to  disperse  them,  you 
carefully  reassembled,  and  equipped  and  sent  back  with  Spanish 
arms,  to  be  plunged  into  kindred  Portuguese  bosoms.  I  will  no* 
stir  for  all  these  things.  Pledged  though  I  am  by  the  most  sol- 
emn obligations  of  treaty  to  resent  attack  upon  Portugal  as  inju- 

pp* 


4G2  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

rious  to  England,  I  love  too  dearly  the  peace  of  Europe  to  be 
goaded  into  activity  by  such  trifles  as  these.  No.  But  give  us  a 
good  declaration  of  war,  and  then  I'll  come  and  fight  you  with  all 
my  heart." — This  is  the  honourable  gentleman's  contrivance  for 
keeping  peace.  The  more  clumsy  contrivance  of  His  Majesty's 
Government  is  this: — "We  have  seen  enough  to  show  to  the 
world  that  Spain  authorized,  if  she  did  not  instigate,  the  invasion 
of  Portugal;"  and  we  say  to  Spain,  "  Beware,  we  will  avenge  the 
cause  of  our  ally,  if  you  break  out  into  declared  war;  but,  in  the 
mean  time,  we  will  take  effectual  care  to  frustrate  your  concealed 
hostilities."  I  appeal  to  my  honourable  friend,  the  member  for 
Dorsetshire,  whether  he  does  not  prefer  this  course  of  His  Majes- 
ty's Government,  the  object  of  which  is  to  nip  growing  hostili- 
ties in  (he  ear,  to  that  of  the  gallant  and  chivalrous  member  for 
Bristol,  who  would  let  aggressions  ripen  into  full  maturity,  in  or- 
der that  they  may  then  be  mowed  down  with  the  scythe  of  a 
magnificent  war. 

My  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Bankes)  will  now  see  why  it  is  that 
no  papers  have  been  laid  before  the  House.  The  facts  which  call 
for  our  interference  in  behalf  of  Portugal,  are  notorious  as  the 
noon-day  sun.  That  interference  is  our  whole  present  object.  To 
prove  more  than  is  sufficient  for  that  object,  by  papers  laid  upon 
the  table  of  this  House,  would  have  been  to  preclude  Spain  from 
that  locus  penitentise  which  we  are  above  all  things  desirous  to 
preserve  to  her.  It  is  difficult,  perhaps,  with  the  full  knowledge 
which  the  Government  must  in  such  cases  possess,  to  judge  what 
exact  portion  of  that  knowledge  should  be  meted  out  for  our  pres- 
ent purpose,  without  hazarding  an  exposure  which  might  carry  us 
too  far.  I  know  not  how  far  I  have  succeeded  in  this  respect; 
but  I  can  assure  the  House,  that  if  the  time  should  unfortunately 
arrive  when  a  further  exposition  shall  become  necessary,  it  will 
be  found,  that  it  was  not  for  want  of  evidence  that  my  statement 
of  this  day  has  been  defective. 

An  amendment  has  been  proposed,  purporting  a  delay  of  a 
week,  but  in  effect,  intended  to  produce  a  total  abandonment  of 
the  object  of  the  Address;  and  that  amendment  has  been  justified 
by  a  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  Government,  and  to  the  lan- 
guage used  by  me  in  this  House,  between  three  or  four  years  ago. 
It  is  stated,  and  truly,  that  I  did  not  then  deny  that  cause  for  war 
had  been  given  by  France  in  the  invasion  of  Spain,  if  we  had 
then  thought  fit  to  enter  into  war  on  that  account.  But  it  seems 
to  be  forgotten  that  there  is  one  main  difference  between  that  case 
and  the  present — which  difference,  however,  is  essential  and  all- 
sufficient.  We  were  then  free  to  go  war,  if  we  pleased,  on  grounds 
of  political  expediency.  But  we  were  not  then  bound  to  inter- 
fere, on  behalf  of  Spain,  as  we  now  are  bound  to  interfere  on  be- 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL. 


463 


half  of  Portugal,  by  the  obligations  of  treaty.  War  might  then 
have  been  our  free  choice,  if  we  had  deemed  it  politic:  interfer- 
ence on  behalf  of  Portugal  is  now  our  duty,  unless  we  are  prepared 
to  abandon  the  principles  of  national  faith  and  national  honour. 

It  is  a  singular  confusion  of  intellect  which  confounds  two  cases 
so  precisely  dissimilar.  Far  from  objecting  to  the  reference  to 
1S23,  I  refer  to  that  same  occasion  to  show  the  consistency  of  the 
conduct  of  myself  and  my  colleagues.  We  were  then  accused  of 
truckling  to  France,  from  a  pusillanimous  dread  of  war.  We 
pleaded  guilty  to  the  charge  of  wishing  to  avoid  war.  We  de- 
scribed its  inexpediency,  its  inconveniences,  and  its  dangers — 
(dangers,  especially  of  the  same  sort  with  those  which  I  have 
hinted  at  to-day;)  but  we  declared  that,  although  we  could  not 
overlook  those  dangers,  those  inconveniences,  and  that  inexpedi- 
ency, in  a  case  in  which  remote  interest  and  doubtful  policy  were 
alone  assigned  as  motives  for  war,  we  would  cheerfully  affront 
them  all,  in  a  case — if  it  should  arrive — where  national  faith  or 
national  honour  were  concerned.  Well,  then,  a  case  has  now 
arisen,  of  which  the  essence  is  faith — of  which  the  character  is 
honour.  And  when  we  call  upon  Parliament,  not  for  offensive 
war — which  was  proposed  to  us  in  1823 — but  for  defensive  ar- 
mament, we  are  referred  to  our  abstinence  in  1823,  as  disqualify- 
ing us  for  exertion  at  the  present  moment:  and  are  told,  that  be- 
cause we  did  not  attack  France  on  that  occasion,  we  must  not 
defend  Portugal  on  this.  I,  Sir,  like  the  proposers  of  the  amend- 
ment, place  the  two  cases  of  1823  and  1826,  side  by  side,  and  de- 
duce from  them,  when  taken  together,  the  exposition  and  justifi- 
cation of  our  general  policy.  I  appeal  from  the  warlike  prepara- 
tions of  to-day,  to  the  forbearance  of  1823,  in  proof  of  the  pacific 
character  of  our  counsels;  I  appeal  from  the  imputed  tameness  of 
1823,  to  the  Message  of  to-night,  in  illustration  of  the  nature  of 
those  motives,  by  which  a  Government,  generally  pacific,  may 
nevertheless  be  justly  roused  into  action. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  objections  to  the  Address,  I  come 
next  to  the  suggestions  of  some  who  profess  themselves  friendly 
to  the  purpose  of  it,  but  who  would  carry  that  purpose  into  effect 
by  means  which  I  certainly  cannot  approve.  It  has  been  suggest- 
ed, Sir,  that  we  should  at  once  ship  off  the  Spanish  refugees  now 
in  this  country,  for  Spain;  and  that  we  should,  by  the  repeal  of  the 
Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  let  loose  into  the  contest  all  the  ardenl 
and  irregular  spirits  of  this  country.  Sir,  this  is  the  very  sugges- 
tion which  I  have  anticipated  with  apprehension,  in  any  war  in 
which  this  country  might  be  engaged,  in  the  present  unquiet  state 
of  the  minds  of  men  in  Europe.  These  are  the  expedients,  the 
tremendous  character  of  which  I  ventured  to  adumbrate  rather 
than  to  describe,  in  the  speech  with  which  I  prefaced  the  present 


464  KING  S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

motion.  Such  expedients  I  disclaim.  I  dread  and  deprecate  the 
employment  of  them.  So  far,  indeed,  as  Spain  herself  is  con- 
cerned, the  employment  of  such  means  would  be  strictly,  I  might 
say,  epigrammatically  just.  The  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  was 
passed  in  the  year  IS  19,  if  not  at  the  direct  request,  for  the  espe- 
cial benefit  of  Spain.  What  right,  then,  would  Spain  have  to 
complain  if  we  should  repeal  it  now,  for  the  especial  benefit  of 
Portugal? 

The  Spanish  refugees  have  been  harboured  in  this  country,  it 
is  true;  but  on  condition  of  abstaining  from  hostile  expeditions 
against  Spain;  and  more  than  once,  when  such  expeditions  have 
been  planned,  the  British  Government  has  interfered  to  suppress 
them.  How  is  this  tenderness  for  Spain  rewarded  ?  Spain  not 
only  harbours,  and  fosters,  and  sustains,  but  arms,  equips,  and 
marshals  the  traitorous  refugees  of  Portugal,  and  pours  them  by 
thousands  into  the  bosom  of  Great  Britain's  nearest  ally.  So  far, 
then,  as  Spain  is  concerned,  the  advice  of  those  who  would  send 
forth  against  Spain  such  dreadful  elements  of  strife  and  destruc- 
tion, is,  as  I  have  admitted,  not  unjust.  But  I  repeat,  again  and 
again,  that  I  disclaim  all  such  expedients;  and  that  I  dread  espe- 
cially a  war  with  Spain,  because  it  is  the  war  of  all  others  in 
which,  by  the  example  and  practice  of  Spain  herself,  such  expe- 
dients are  most  likely  to  be  adopted.  Let  us  avoid  that  war  if  we 
can — that  is,  if  Spain  will  permit  us  to  do  so.  But  in  any  case,  let 
us  endeavour  to  strip  any  war — if  war  we  must  have — of  that  for- 
midable and  disastrous  character  which  the  honourable  and  learn- 
ed gentleman  (Mr.  Brougham)  has  so  eloquently  described;  and 
which  I  was  happy  to  hear  him  concur  with  me  in  deprecating, 
as  the  most  fatal  evil  by  which  the  world  could  be  afflicted. 

Sir,  there  is  another  suggestion  with  which  I  cannot  agree,  al- 
though brought  forward  by  two  honourable  members  (Sir  R.  Wil- 
son and  Mr.  Baring,)  who  have,  in  the  most  handsome  manner, 
stated  their  reasons  for  approving  of  the  line  of  conduct  now  pur- 
sued by  His  Majesty's  Government.  Those  honourable  members 
insist  that  the  French  army  in  Spain  has  been,  if  not  the  cause, 
the  encouragement,  of  the  late  attack  by  Spain  against  Portugal; 
that  His  Majesty's  Government  were  highly  culpable  in  allowing 
that  army  to  enter  Spain;  that  its  stay  there  is  highly  injurious  to 
British  interests  and  honour;  and  that  we  ought  instantly  to  call 
upon  France  to  withdraw  it. 

There  are,  Sir,  so  many  considerations  connected  with  these 
propositions,  that  were  I  to  enter  into  them  all,  they  would  carry 
me  far  beyond  what  is  either  necessary  or  expedient  to  be  stated  on 
the  present  occasion.  Enough,  perhaps,  it  is  for  me  to  say,  that  I 
do  not  see  how  the  withdrawing  of  the  French  troops  from  Spain, 
could  effect  our  present  purpose.     I  believe,  Sir,  that  the  French 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL.  465 

army  in  Spain  is  now  a  protection  to  that  very  party  which  it  was 
originally  called  in  to  put  down.  Were  the  French  army  sudden- 
ly removed  at  this  precise  moment,  I  verily  believe  that  the  im- 
mediate effect  of  that  removal  would  be,  to  give  full  scope  to  the 
unbridled  rage  of  a  fanatical  faction,  before  which,  in  the  whirl- 
wind of  intestine  strife,  the  party  least  in  numbers  would  be  swept 
away. 

So  much  for  the  immediate  effect  of  the  demand  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  us  to  make,  if  that  demand  were  instantly  successful.  But 
when,  with  reference  to  the  larger  question  of  a  military  occupa- 
tion of  Spain  by  France,  it  is  averred,  that  by  that  occupation  the 
relative  situation  of  Great  Britain  and  France  is  altered;  that 
France  is  thereby  exalted  and  Great  Britain  lowered,  in  the  eyes 
of  Europe; — I  must  beg  leave  to  say,  that  I  dissent  from  that 
averment.  The  House  knows — the  country  knows — that  when 
the  French  army  was  on  the  point  of  entering  Spain,  His  Majes- 
ty's Government  did  all  in  their  power  to  prevent  it;  that  we  re- 
sisted it  by  all  means,  short  of  war.  I  have  just  now  stated  some 
of  the  reasons  why  we  did  not  think  the  entry  of  that  army  into 
Spain,  a  sufficient  ground  for  war;  but  there  was,  in  addition  to 
those  which  I  have  stated,  this  peculiar  reason, — that  whatever 
effect  a  war,  commenced  upon  the  mere  ground  of  the  entry  of  a 
French  army  into  Spain,  might  have,  it  probably  would  not  have 
had  the  effect  of  getting  that  army  out  of  Spain.  In  a  war  against 
France  at  that  time,  as  at  any  other,  you  might,  perhaps,  have  ac- 
quired military  glory;  you  might,  perhaps,  have  extended  your 
colonial  possessions;  you  might  even  have  achieved,  at  great  cost 
of  blood  and  treasure,  an  honourable  peace;  but  as  to  getting  the 
French  out  of  Spain,  that  would  have  been  the  one  object  which 
you,  almost  certainly,  would  not  have  accomplished.  How  seldom, 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  wars  of  Europe,  has  any  war  between 
two  great  Powers  ended,  in  the  obtaining  of  the  exact,  the  iden- 
tical object,  for  which  the  war  was  begun! 

Besides,  Sir,  I  confess  I  think,  that  the  effects  of  the  French 
occupation  of  Spain  have  been  infinitely  exaggerated. 

I  do  not  blame  those  exaggerations;  because  I  am  aware  that 
they  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  recollections  of  some  of  the  best 
times  of  our  history;  that  they  are  the  echoes  of  sentiments,  which 
in  the  days  of  William  and  of  Anne,  animated  the  debates  and  dic- 
tated the  votes  of  the  British  Parliament.  No  peace  was  in  those 
days  thought  safe  for  this  country  while  the  crown  of  Spain  con- 
tinual mi  the  head  of  a  Bourbon.  But  were  not  the  apprehen- 
sions of  those  days  greatly  overstated? — Has  the  power  of  Spain 
swallowed  up  the  power  of  maritime  England? — Or  does  Eng- 
land Still  remain,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  a  century,  during 
which  the  crown  of  Spain  has  been  worn  by  a  Bourbon, — niched 
61 


460  KING'S  MESSAGE  RELATIVE  TO  THE 

in  a  nook  of  that  same  Spain — Gibraltar;  an  occupation  which 
was  contemporaneous  with  the  apprehensions  that  I  have  de- 
scribed, and  which  has  happily  survived  them? 

Again,  Sir — is  the  Spain  of  the  present  day  the  Spain  of  which 
the  statesmen  of  the  times  of  "William  and  Anne  were  so  much 
afraid  ?  Is  it  indeed  the  nation  whose  puissance  was  expected  to 
shake  England  from  her  sphere?  No,  Sir,  it  was  quite  another 
Spain — it  was  the  Spain,  within  the  limits  of  whose  empire  the 
sun  never  set — it  was  Spain  "  with  the  Indies"  that  excited  the 
jealousies  and  alarmed  the  imaginations  of  our  ancestors. 

But  then,  Sir,  the  balance  of  power!  — The  entry  of  the  French 
army  into  Spain  disturbed  that  balance,  and  we  ought  to  have 
gone  to  war  to  restore  it!  I  have  already  said,  that  when  the 
French  army  entered  Spain,  we  might,  if  we  chose,  have  resisted 
or  resented  that  measure  by  war.  But  were  there  no  other  means 
than  war  for  restoring  the  balance  of  power? — Is  the  balance  of 
power  a  fixed  and  unalterable  standard  ?  Or  is  it  not  a  standard 
perpetually  varying,  as  civilization  advances,  and  as  new  nations 
spring  up,  and  take  their  place  among  established  political  com- 
munities? The  balance  of  power  a  century  and  a  half  ago  was  to 
be  adjusted  between  France  and  Spain,  the  Netherlands,  Austria, 
and  England.  Some  years  afterwards,  Russia  assumed  her  high 
station  in  European  politics.  Some  years  after  that  again,  Prus- 
sia became  not  only  a  substantive,  but  a  preponderating  monarchy. 
— Thus,  while  the  balance  of  power  continued  in  principle  the 
same,  the  means  of  adjusting  it  became  more  varied  and  enlarged. 
They  became  enlarged,  in  proportion  to  the  increased  number  of 
considerable  states — in  proportion,  I  may  say,  to  the  number  of 
weights  which  might  be  shifted  into  the  one  or  other  scale.  To 
look  to  the  policy  of  Europe,  in  the  times  of  William  and  Anne, 
for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe  at 
the  present  day,  is  to  disregard  the  progress  of  events,  and  to 
confuse  dates  and  facts  which  throw  a  reciprocal  light  upon  each 
other. 

It  would  be  disingenuous,  indeed,  not  to  admit  that  the  entry 
of  the  French  army  into  Spain  was  in  a  certain  sense,  a  dispar- 
agement— an  affront  to  the  pride — a  blow  to  the  feelings  of  Eng- 
land:— and  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the  Government  did 
not  sympathize,  on  that  occasion,  with  the  feelings  of  the  people. 
But  I  deny  that,  questionable  or  censurable  as  the  act  might  be, 
it  was  one  which  necessarily  called  for  our  direct  and  hostile  oppo- 
sition. Was  nothing  then  to  be  done  ? — Was  there  no  other  mode 
of  resistance,  than  by  a  direct  attack  upon  France — or  by  a  war 
to  be  undertaken  on  the  soil  of  Spain?  What,  if  the  possession  of 
Spain  might  be  rendered  harmless  in  rival  hands — harmless  as  re- 
garded us — and  valueless  to  the  possessors?  Might  not  compensa- 


AFFAIRS  OF  PORTUGAL.  467 

tion  for  disparagement  be  obtained,  and  the  policy  of  our  ances- 
tors vindicated,  by  means  better  adapted  to  the  present  time?  If 
France  occupied  Spain,  was  it  necessary,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
consequences  of  that  occupation — that  we  should  blockade  Cadiz? 
No.  I  looked  another  way — I  sought  materials  of  compensation 
in  another  hemisphere.  Contemplating  Spain,  such  as  our  ances- 
tors had  known  her,  I  resolved  that  if  France  had  Spain,  it  should 
not  be  Spain  "  with  the  Indies."  I  called  the  New  World  into 
existence,  to  redress  the  balance  of  the  Old. 

It  is  thus,  Sir,  that  I  answer  the  accusation  brought  against  His 
Majesty's  Government,  of  having  allowed  the  French  army  to 
usurp  and  to  retain  the  occupation  of  Spain.  That  occupation,  I 
am  quite  confident,  is  an  unpaid  and  unredeemed  burden  to  France. 
It  is  a  burden  of  which,  I  verily  believe,  France  would  be  glad  to 
rid  herself.  But  they  know  little  of  the  feelings  of  the  French 
Government,  and  of  the  spirit  of  the  French  nation,  who  do  not 
know,  that,  worthless  or  burdensome  as  that  occupation  may  be, 
the  way  to  rivet  her  in  it  would  be,  by  angry  or  intemperate  rep- 
resentations, to  make  the  continuance  of  that  occupation  a  point 
of  honour. 

I  believe,  Sir,  there  is  no  other  subject  upon  which  I  need  enter 
into  defence  or  explanation.  The  support  which  the  address  has 
received,  from  all  parties  in  the  House,  has  been  such  as  would 
make  it  both  unseemly  and  ungrateful  in  me  to  trespass  unneces- 
sarily upon  their  patience.  In  conclusion,  Sir,  I  shall  only  once 
more  declare,  that  the  object  of  the  Address,  which  I  propose  to 
you,  is  not  war: — its  object  is  to  take  the  last  chance  of  peace. 
If  you  do  not  go  forth,  on  this  occasion,  to  the  aid  of  Portugal, 
Portugal  will  be  trampled  down,  to  your  irretrievable  disgrace: — 
and  then  will  come  war  in  the  train  of  national  degradation.  If, 
under  circumstances  like  these,  you  wait  till  Spain  has  matured 
her  secret  machinations  into  open  hostility,  you  will  in  a  little 
while  have  the  sort  of  war  required  by  the  pacificators: — and 
who  shall  say  where  that  war  shall  end  ? 

The  Amendment  was  then  put  and  negatived,  there  appearing  only  three  or 
four  supporters  for  Mr.  Hume's  proposition;  and  the  original  question  was  then 
put  and  carried,  with  only  the  same  number  of  dissentients. 


468 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

SPEECH 

at  liverpool    after  having  been  chaired,  on  saturday, 
the  17th  of  october,  1812. 

Gentlemen, 

I  congratulate  you  on  your  final  success;  for  it  is  your  victory, 
and  not  mine.  The  contest  has  been  a  contest  of  principles,  not 
of  persons;  although  I  should  belie  my  own  feelings  if  I  were 
not  to  confess,  that,  to  the  latest  hour  of  my  life,  I  shall  be  proud 
that  the  battle  has  been  fought  in  my  person,  and  that  my  name 
has  been  associated  with  your  exertions,  and  illustrated  by  your 
triumph.  You,  gentlemen,  have  done  me  the  honour  to  select 
me,  not,  undoubtedly,  for  any  individual  merits  of  my  own,  (I 
know  that  I  can  pretend  to  none,)  but  in  order  that,  by  returning 
me  to  represent  your  opinions  in  Parliament,  you  might  vindi- 
cate the  freedom  of  your  choice,  the  loyalty  of  your  principles, 
and  the  consistency  of  your  character. 

Gentlemen,  I  wish  that  those  theorists  of  reform,  who  think 
nothing  right  in  the  practice  of  our  Constitution,  could  witness 
the  scene  which  I  have  now  the  delight  to  survey:  those  who 
presume  that  every  popular  feeling  must  belong  to  themselves 
alone;  who  imagine  that  a  zealous  and  ardent  exercise  of  popular 
rights,  and  an  enthusiastic  expression  of  popular  sentiments,  are 
incompatible  with  an  equally  enthusiastic  attachment  to  all  the 
monarchical  principles  of  the  Constitution.  When  will  such  men 
learn,  that  what  they  call  exclusively  popular  principles  are  not 
the  principles  of  the  people?  Can  they  look  this  day  at  the 
peaceful  triumph  of  Liverpool,  as  they  have  looked  for  the  last 
three  years  at  the  glorious  and  bloody  struggles  of  Spain,  and  yet 
doubt  the  possibility  of  a  combination  of  all  that  is  national  in 
feeling,  with  all  that  is  loyal  in  principle;  of  a  spirit  of  democ- 
racy sufficient  to  give  energy  to  a  state,  with  a  devotedness  to 
monarchy  sufficient  to  secure  its  conservation  ? 

Gentlemen,  some  persons  have  endeavoured  to  persuade  you, 
that  in  giving  your  suffrages  to  a  man  who  has  been  the  uniform 
supporter  of  a  war,  glorious  in  itself,  but  only  glorious  inasmuch 
as  it  is  necessary  and  unavoidable,  you  are  deferring  the  day  of 
peace.  Fortunately,  for  the  clear  understanding  of  such  reason- 
ings, they  have  sometimes  been  coupled  with  prophecy.  Let  us 
compare,  where  we  have  an  opportunity,  what  has  happened  with 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  4G9 

what  was  foretold;  and  then  judge  what  weight  is  to  be  assigned 
to  the  same  reasonings  in  future. 

The  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Brougham)  who  left  your 
hustings  yesterday,  (of  whom,  as  an  individual,  I  have  spoken, 
and  mean  to  speak  with  the  utmost  respect,)  on  or  about  the  16th 
of  last  June,  proposed,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  a  specific  con- 
cession to  America;  and  pledged  himself,  that  if  that  concession 
were  made,  peace  would  be  preserved  or  restored.  By  a  singular 
coincidence,  on  or  about  the  same  day  on  which  that  motion  was 
made,  the  declaration  of  war  by  America  against  Great  Britain 
passed  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  0 !  but  the  concession 
was  to  heal  all.  The  Ministers,  whether  swayed  by  the  honour- 
able gentleman's  eloquence,  or  participating  in  his  expectations,  I 
know  not,  gave  way;  and  the  concession  was  made.  Confident, 
from  this  triumph,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  the  honoura- 
ble gentleman,  the  prophet  of  American  reconciliation,  presents 
himself  (I  ought  rather  to  say,  is  presented,  by  some  among  you) 
to  be  chosen  as  your  representative  in  Parliament.  Yesterday  he 
left  your  town,  disappointed  of  this  honourable  object:  and,  by 
another  singular  coincidence,  the  defeat  of  the  prophecy  upon 
which  his  expectations  were  founded,  is  made  known  here  on  the 
very  day  of  the  defeat  of  those  expectations.  For,  yesterday, 
the  declaration,  the  tardy  declaration  of  war  by  this  country 
against  America,  arrives  here;  and  tells  us,  in  terms  too  plain  to 
be  misunderstood,  that  to  seek  peace  through  humiliation,  is  a 
course  neither  of  honour  nor  of  advantage. 

It  has  been  further  attempted  to  deter  you  from  the  choice, 
which  you  have  done  me  the  honour  to  make,  by  saying  that  I 
had  been  in  office,  and  am  likely  to  be  in  office  again.  I  have 
been  in  office.  How  soon,  if  ever  I  may  be  in  office  again,  I 
neither  know,  nor  do  I  very  much  care,  for  any  other  reason  than 
as  it  might  afford  me  greater  opportunities  of  promoting  the  in- 
terests of  the  country,  of  which  your  interests  constitute  so  es- 
sential a  part. 

But,  gentlemen,  what  is  meant  by  this  imputation  ?  Are  they 
who  urge  it  so  little  read  in  the  principles,  the  democratical  prin- 
ciples, of  the  British  Constitution,  as  not  to  know  that  it  is  one 
of  the  peculiar  boasts  of  this  country,  one  of  the  prime  fruits  of 
its  free  Constitution,  and  one  main  security  for  its  continuing 
free,  that  men  as  humble  as  myself,  with  no  pretensions  of  wealth, 
or  title,  or  high  family,  or  wide-spreading  connexions,  may  yet 
find  their  way  into  the  Cabinet  of  their  Sovereign,  through  the 
fair  road  of  public  service,  and  stand  there  upon  a  footing  of 
equality  with  the  proudest  aristocracy  of  the  land? 

Is  it  from  courtiers  of  the  people,  from  admirers  of  republican 
virtue  and  republican  energy,  that  we  hear  doctrines  which  would 


470  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

tend  to  exclude  from  the  management  of  public  affairs  all  who  are 
not  illustrious  by  birth,  or  powerful  from  hereditary  opulence? 
Why,  gentlemen,  in  this  limited  monarchy,  there  are  undoubt- 
edly contests  for  office,  contests  which  agitate  the  elements  of 
the  Constitution,  and  which  keep  them  alive  and  active,  without 
endangering  the  Constitution  itself.  A  republic  is  nothing  but 
one  continual  struggle  for  office  in  every  department  of  the  state. 
Mad,  indeed,  and  desperate  would  be  the  reform  which  should 
exclude  from  the  House  of  Commons,  as  some  ignorant  theorists 
advise,  every  man  who  has  possessed,  or  who  possesses  office: 
separating  thereby  the  service  of  the  Crown  from  that  of  the 
people;  as  if  they  were  not  identified  in  interests,  and  mutually 
dependant  on  each  other. 

Gentlemen,  if  I  have  held  office,  I  hope  I  have  held  it  honour- 
ably: I  will  never  hold  it  again  but  on  the  same  terms.  It  is  not 
my  fault  that  I  must  state  facts,  in  my  own  defence,  which  might 
appear  to  be  stated  ostentatiously;  but  I  mean  them  simply  as 
defensive.  It  is  entirely  my  own  fault,  gentlemen,  that  I  am  not 
now  addressing  you  with  the  seals  of  Secretary  of  State  in  my 
pocket.  Twice,  in  the  course  of  the  last  six  months,  have  the 
seals  of  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  been  tendered  to  my  ac- 
ceptance; and  twice  have  I  declined  them.  Is  this  like  hanker- 
ing after  office?  I  declined  them,  not  because  I  was  unwilling  to 
render  any  services  of  which  my  poor  abilities  were  capable  to 
my  country;  not  because  I  did  not  acknowledge,  with  all  due 
gratitude  and  humility,  the  gracious  disposition  of  my  Prince; 
not  because  I  shrink  from  the  difficulties  of  the  times,  to  the  en- 
countering and  overcoming  of  which  I  should  feel  myself,  from 
the  public  situation  in  which  I  have  had  the  honour  to  stand, 
bound  to  render  whatever  aid  was  in  my  power,  if  I  could  do  so 
with  effect,  by  doing  so  with  credit.  I  declined  office,  gentlemen, 
because  it  was  tendered  to  me  on  terms  not  consistent,  as  I 
thought,  and  as  my  immediate  friends  agreed  in  thinking,  with 
my  personal  honour;  because,  if  accepted  on  such  terms,  it 
would  not  have  enabled  me  to  serve  the  public  with  efficiency. 

Gentlemen,  I  presume  not  to  trouble  you  with  any  details  upon 
this  subject;  but  what  I  have  stated,  and  what  is  before  the 
world,  is,  I  hope,  sufficient  to  justify  me  against  the  accusation 
of  hankering  after  office.  Whether  you  will  ever  see  me  in  of- 
fice again,  I  cannot  tell;  but  of  this  I  can  assure  you,  that  it  shall 
not  be  in  a  way  dishonourable  to  myself  or  to  you.  I  dare  not, 
indeed,  reckon  upon  the  continuance  of  such  unmerited  partiality 
and  affection  as  you  now  so  kindly  heap  upon  me;  but  this  I  can 
answer  for,  that  neither  in  nor  out  of  office,  shall  you  have  cause 
to  be  ashamed  of  me. 

Gentlemen,  I  stated  to  you,  two  nights  ago,  my  opinion  of  the 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  471 

conduct  of  my  adversary,  Mr.  Brougham,  in  determining,  at  that 
time,  not  to  decline  the  contest.  I  told  you,  that  I  thought  he 
could  not  do  otherwise  than  act  upon  the  opinions  and  persua- 
sions of  his  friends;  and  that  he  had  explained  his  motives  with 
the  utmost  candour  and  fairness.  I  think  so  still.  I  myself  know 
nothing  to  the  contrary.  But  I  have  certainly  heard,  that  speeches 
delivered  in  another  place  were  very  different,  indeed,  from  those 
which  were  delivered  at  the  hustings.  And,  while  I  beg  not  to 
be  understood  as  intending  to  give  any  colour  of  my  own  to  ex- 
pressions which  I  did  not  hear,  and  cannot  vouch  for,  there  is 
one  topic,  which  is  represented  as  having  made  considerable  im- 
pression, which  I  owe  it  to  the  Government  of  the  country  (how- 
ever myself  unconnected  with  it)  not  to  suffer  to  pass  unnoticed. 
The  declaration  of  war  against  America  has,  as  I  am  informed, 
been  stated  to  have  been  delayed  by  the  Government  of  this 
country  for  the  sake  of  sweeping  into  the  royal  chest  a  large  sum 
of  the  Droits  of  Admiralty,  to  be  disposed  of  at  the  pleasure  of 
Ministers,  for  purposes  of  prodigality  and  corruption.  Gentle- 
men, I  would  fain  believe  that  this  assertion  cannot  have  been 
made.  An  account  of  the  distribution  of  the  Droits  of  Admi- 
ralty has,  as  is  well  known,  been  submitted  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons the  last  two  years;  and,  surely,  to  attribute  a  measure  of 
peace  or  war  to  a  desire  on  the  part  of  Government  to  disappoint 
our  own  captors,  for  the  sake  of  getting  possession  of  a  sum,  of 
which  the  disposal  is,  after  all,  to  be  made  public,  is  to  attribute 
motives  not  only  altogether  unworthy,  but  utterly  inadequate 
and  absurd. 

I  say  this  the  rather,  because  I  must  fairly  own,  that  differing 
as  I  do  entirely  as  to  the  causes  to  which  the  delay  is  to  be  attrib- 
uted, I  am  inclined  to  agree  that  the  declaration  of  war  against 
America  has  been  delayed  too  long.  When  all  hopes  of  preserv- 
ing peace  were  vanished,  nothing  remained,  in  my  opinion,  for 
this  Government  but  prompt  and  vigorous  war.  It  was  the  only 
course  becoming  this  great  country.  It  would  have  afforded  the 
best  chance  of  bringing  the  American  Government  to  their  senses. 

The  opinions  which  I  now  express  are  in  unison  with  those 
which  I  took  the  liberty  of  expressing  in  my  place  in  Parliament, 
when  that  concession  was  agreed  to  by  the  Ministers,  at  Mr. 
Brougham's  suggestion,  upon  the  strength  of  which  Mr.  Broug- 
ham has  been  presented  to  your  choice.  I  then  ventured  to  state 
my  doubts,  whether  that  concession  would  propitiate  America; 
whether  it  would  not  rather  tend  to  confirm  the  hostile  policy  of 
that  Government,  and  to  enhance  its  pretensions.  In  fact,  how 
is  it  that  our  concession  has  been  met?  By  reciprocal  concession, 
by  abated  pride,  assuaged  malice,  and  returning  good-will?  No 
such  thing.    They  have  risen  in  their  terms,  as  unreasonable  con- 


472  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

cession  will  always  induce  and  encourage  an  unreasonable  enemy 
to  do. 

Gentlemen,  you  see  that  I  speak  to  you  as  freely  of  the  con- 
duct and  policy  of  our  Government  as  of  the  conduct  of  those  to 
whom  I  am  politically  opposed.  To  one  man,  while  he  lived,  I 
was  devoted  with  all  my  heart  and  with  all  my  soul.  Since  the 
death  of  Mr.  Pitt,  I  acknowledge  no  leader.  My  political  alle- 
giance lies  buried  in  his  grave.  But  I  have,  though  not  his  im- 
mediate counsels  to  follow,  his  memory  to  cherish  and  revere. 
So  far  as  I  knew  his  opinions,  on  subjects  which  were,  in  his 
time,  as  well  as  now,  of  great  public  interest,  I  have  adhered  and 
shall  adhere  to  those  opinions  as  the  guides  of  my  public  con- 
duct. Where  I  can  only  reason  from  analogy  on  new  questions 
which  may  arise,  I  shall  endeavour  to  apply  to  those  questions, 
whatever  they  may  be,  the  principles  which  I  imbibed  and  in- 
herit from  him;  principles  which,  I  well  know,  have  alone  re- 
commended me  to  your  choice  this  clay. 

Of  the  cause  of  good  government,  in  whatever  hands  the  ad- 
ministration of  Government  may  be  placed,  even  if  in  the  hands 
of  those  to  whom  I  have  been  politically  opposed,  I  shall  always 
be  a  faithful  and  steady  supporter.  But  I  do  not  pledge  myself 
to  you,  I  will  never  pledge  myself  to  any  man,  to  be  the  blind 
and  subservient  supporter  of  the  Administration  in  any  hands 
whatever.  My  general  disposition  is  to  support  the  Government. 
What  I  find  amiss,  however,  I  shall  blame  with  freedom;  though 
I  will  not  do  so  with  any  intention  to  excite  discontent,  nor  at 
the  hazard  of  mischief  to  the  country. 

Gentlemen,  if  I  did  not  retain  the  independence  of  my  own 
judgment  in  the  House  of  Commons,  I  should  be  but  an  un- 
worthy representative  of  the  independent  and  enlightened  com- 
munity which  sends  me  thither.  It  may  happen,  that  your  judg- 
ment may  occasionally  come  in  conflict  with  my  own.  Men  of 
independent  minds  may  honestly  differ  on  subjects  which  admit 
of  a  variety  of  views.  In  all  such  cases,  I  promise  you,  not  in- 
deed wholly  to  submit  my  judgment  to  yours;  you  would  despise 
me  if  I  made  so  extravagant  a  confession;  but  I  promise  you  that 
any  difference  of  opinion  between  us  will  always  lead  me  to  dis- 
trust my  own  views,  carefully  to  examine,  and,  if  erroneous, 
frankly  to  correct  them.  Gentlemen,  our  judgments  may  clash, 
but  our  interest  never:  no  interests  of  mine  shall  ever  come  in 
competition  with  yours.  I  promise  you  further,  that,  hoping,  as 
I  earnestly  do,  that  the  connexion,  of  which  the  foundation  is  this 
day  auspiciously  laid,  may  last  to  the  end  of  my  political  life — 
yet  if,  unfortunately,  occasions  sbould  occur,  (I  cannot  foresee  or 
imagine  any  such,)  on  which  there  should  arise  between  us,  on 
points  of  serious  importance,  a  radical  and  irreconcilable  differ- 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  473 

ence  of  opinion,  I  will  not  abuse  my  trust,  but  will  give  you  the 
earliest  opportunity  of  recalling  or  reconsidering  your  delegation 
of  it. 

Gentlemen,  with  the  most  heartfelt  acknowledgment;  with 
feelings  of  gratitude  which  words  are  too  weak  to  convey,  and 
of  pride,  which  I  dare  not  trust  myself  with  expressing;  with  a 
sense  of  the  honour  which  you  have  conferred  upon  me,  less 
gratifying  only  than  my  sense  of  the  kindness  with  which  you 
have  overwhelmed  me;  with  sentiments  such  as  till  this  day  I 
never  knew,  but  which  I  shall  recollect  with  delight  until  the 
latest  hour  of  my  life,  I  take  my  leave  of  you  for  the  present; 
praying  that  Providence  may  so  direct  my  conduct  as  never  to 
give  you  cause,  in  your  better  judgment,  to  look  back  with  re- 
gret upon  the  choice  which  you  have  made. 


62  QQ* 


474 


SPEECH 

on  monday,  the  10th  op  january,  1814,  at  the  liverpool 
arms  hotel,  after  his  health  had  been  drunk. 

Gentlemen, 

As  your  guest,  I  thank  you,  from  my  heart,  for  the  honourable 
and  affectionate  reception  which  you  have  given  me.  As  the 
representative  of  Liverpool,  I  am  most  happy  in  meeting  my 
constituents  again,  after  a  year's  experience  of  each  other,  and  a 
year's  separation;  a  year,  the  most  eventful  in  the  annals  of  the 
world,  and  comprising,  within  itself,  such  a  series  of  stupendous 
changes  as  might  have  filled  the  history  of  an  age. 

Gentlemen,  you  have  been  so  good  as  to  couple  with  my  name 
the  expression  of  your  acknowledgments  for  the  attention  which 
I  have  paid  to  the  interests  of  your  town.     You,  gentlemen,  I 
have  no  doubt,  recollect  the  terms  upon  which  I  entered  into 
your  service;  and  you  are  aware,  therefore,  that  I  claim  no  par- 
ticular acknowledgment  at  your  hands  for  attention  to  the  inter- 
ests of  Liverpool,  implicated  as  they  are  with  the  general  inter- 
ests of  the  country.     I  trust,  at  the  same  time,  that  I  have  not 
been  wanting  to  all  or  to  any  of  you,  in  matters  of  local  or  indi- 
vidual concern.     But  I  should  not  do  fairly  by  you,  if  I  were 
not  to  take  this  opportunity  of  saying,  that  a  service  (which  cer- 
tainly, I  will   not  pretend  to  describe  as  without  some  burden  in 
itself)  has  been  made  light  to  me,  beyond  all  example,  by  that 
institution  which  your  munificence  and  provident  care  have  estab- 
lished: I  mean,  the  office  in  London,  through  which  your  corres- 
pondence with  your  members  is  now  carried  on.  I  had  no  preten- 
sion, gentlemen,  to  this  singular  mark  of  your  consideration:  but 
neither  will  it,  I  hope,  be  thought  presumptuous  in  me  to  confess, 
that  I  might  not  have  been  able  to  discharge  the  service  which  I 
owe  you  in  a  way  which  would  have  satisfied  my  own  feelings  as 
well  as  yours — that  I  might,  in  spite  of  all  my  endeavours,  have 
been  guilty  of  occasional  omissions,  if  I  had  not  been  provided 
with  some  such  medium  of  communication  with  my  constituents. 
Of  an  absent  and  meritorious  individual  it  is  as  pleasing  as  it  is 
just  to  speak  well:  and  I  do  no  more  than  justice  to  the  gentle- 
man (Mr.  John  Backhouse)  whom  you  have  appointed  to  conduct 
the  office  in  question,  (with  whom   I  had  no  previous  acquaint- 
ance,) in  bearing  public  testimony  to  his  merit,  and  in  assuring 
you,  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  one  who  would  surpass 
him  in  zeal,  intelligence,  and  industry. 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  475 

Having  despatched  what  it  was  necessary  for  me  to  say  on 
these  points,  I  know,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  your  wish,  and  I  feel  it 
to  be  my  duty,  that  I  should  now  proceed  to  communicate  to  you 
my  sentiments  on  the  state  of  public  affairs,  with  the  same  frank- 
ness which  has  hitherto  distinguished  all  our  intercourse  with 
each  other.  That  duty  is  one  which  it  does  not  now  require  any 
effort  of  courage  to  perform.  To  exhort  to  sacrifices,  to  stimu- 
late to  exertion,  to  shame  despondency,  to  divert  from  untimely 
concession,  is  a  duty  of  a  sterner  sort,  which  you  found  me  not 
backward  to  discharge,  at  a  period  when,  from  the  shortness  of 
our  acquaintance,  I  was  uncertain  whether  my  freedom  might  not 
offend  you.  My  task  of  to-day  is  one  at  which  no  man  can  take 
offence.  It  is  to  mingle  my  congratulations  with  your  rejoicings 
on  the  events  which  have  passed  and  are  passing  in  the  world. 

If,  in  contemplating  events  so  widely  (I  had  almost  said  so  tre- 
mendously) important,  it  be  pardonable  to  turn  one's  view,  for  a 
moment,  to  local  and  partial  considerations,  I  may  be  permitted 
to  observe,  that,  while  to  Great  Britain,  while  to  all  Europe,  while 
to  the  world  and  to  posterity,  the  events  which  have  recently 
taken  place  are  matter  of  unbounded  and  universal  joy,  there  is 
no  collection  of  individuals  who  are  better  entitled  than  the  com- 
pany now  assembled  in  this  room  (in  great  part,  I  presume,  iden- 
tically the  same,  and  altogether  representing  the  same  interests 
and  feelings  as  that  of  which  I  took  leave,  in  this  room,  about 
fourteen  months  ago)  to  exult  in  the  present  state  of  things,  and 
to  derive  from  it,  in  addition  to  their  share  of  the  general  joy,  a 
distinct  and  special  satisfaction. 

We  cannot  forget,  gentlemen,  the  sinister  omens  and  awful  pre- 
dictions under  which  we  met  and  parted  in  October,  IS  12.  The 
penalty  denounced  upon  you  for  your  election  of  me  was,  embar- 
rassment to  the  rich,  and  famine  to  the  poor.  I  was  warned,  that, 
when  I  should  return  to  renew  my  acquaintance  with  my  constit- 
uents, I  should  find  the  grass  growing  in  your  streets.  In  spite 
of  that  denunciation,  you  did  me  the  honour  to  elect  me;  in  spite 
of  that  warning,  I  venture  to  meet  you  here  again.  It  must  be 
fairly  confessed,  that  this  is  not  the  season  of  the  year  to  estimate 
correctly  the  amount  of  superfluous  and  unprofitable  vegetation 
with  which  your  streets  may  be  teeming;  but,  without  presuming 
to  limit  the  power  of  productive  nature,  it  is  at  least  satisfactory 
to  know,  that  the  fields  have  not  been  starved  to  clothe  your  quays 
with  verdure;  that  it  is  not  by  economizing  in  the  scantiness  of 
the  harvest  that  nature  has  reserved  her  vigour  for  the  pastures 
of  your  Exchange. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  am  sure  you  feel  with  me,  that  these  are 
topics  which  I  treat  with  levity  only  because  they  are  not,  nor 
were,  at  the  time  when  they  were  seriously  urged,  susceptible  of 


476  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

a  serious  argument;  they  did  not  furnish  grounds  on  which  any 
man  would  rest  his  appeal  to  your  favour,  or  on  which  your  choice 
of  any  man  could  be  justified.  If  I  have  condescended  to  revert 
to  them  at  all,  it  is  because  I  would  leave  none  of  those  recollec- 
tions untouched  which  the  comparison  of  our  last  meeting  with 
the  present,  I  know,  suggests  to  your  minds  as  well  as  to  my  own  j 
and  because  I  would,  so  far  as  in  me  lies,  endeavour  to  banish 
from  all  future  use,  by  exposing  their  absurdity,  topics  which  are 
calculated  only  to  mislead  and  to  inflame.  That  the  seasons  would 
have  run  their  appointed  course,  that  the  sun  would  have  shone 
with  as  genial  a  warmth,  and  the  showers  would  have  fallen  with 
as  fertilizing  a  moisture,  if  you  had  not  chosen  me  for  your  repre- 
sentative, is  an  admission  which  I  make  without  much  appre- 
hension of  the  consequence.  Nor  do  I  wish  you  to  believe,  that 
your  choice  of  any  other  than  me  would  have  delayed  the  return 
of  your  prosperity,  or  prevented  the  revival  of  your  commerce. 

I  make  these  admissions  without  fear,  so  far  as  concerns  the 
choice  between  individuals.  But  I  do  not  admit,  that  it  was 
equally  indifferent  upon  what  principles  that  choice  should  be  de- 
termined. I  do  not  admit,  that,  if  the  principles  which  it  was 
then  recommended  to  you  to  countenance  had  unfortunately  pre- 
vailed in  Parliament,  and,  through  the  authority  of  Parliament, 
had  been  introduced  into  the  counsels  of  the  country,  they  would 
not  have  interfered  with  fatal  operation,  not  indeed  to  arrest  the 
bounty  of  Providence,  to  turn  back  the  course  of  the  seasons,  and 
to  blast  the  fertility  of  the  earth,  but  to  stop  that  current  of  politi- 
cal events  which,  "  taken  at  the  flood,"  has  placed  England  at 
the  head  of  the  world. 

Gentlemen,  if  I  had  met  you  here  again  on  this  day  in  a  state 
of  public  affairs  as  doubtful  as  that  in  which  we  took  leave  oi 
each  other;  if  confederated  nations  had  been  still  arrayed  against 
this  country,  and  the  balance  of  Europe  still  trembling  in  the  scale, 
I  should  not  have  hesitated  now,  as  I  did  not  hesitate  then,  to  de- 
clare my  decided  and  unalterable  opinion,  that  perseverance,  under 
whatever  difficulties,  under  whatever  privations,  afforded  the  only 
chance  of  prosperity  to  you,  because  the  only  chance  of  safety  to 
your  country;  and  the  only  chance  of  safety  to  the  country,  be- 
cause the  only  chance  of  deliverance  to  Europe.  Gentlemen,  I 
should  be  ashamed  to  address  you  now  in  the  tone  of  triumph,  if 
I  had  not  addressed  you  then  in  that  of  exhortation.  I  should  be 
ashamed  to  appear  before  you  shouting  in  the  train  of  success,  if 
I  had  not  looked  you  in  the  face  and  encouraged  you  to  patience 
under  difficulties.  It  is  because  my  acquaintance  with  you  com- 
menced in  times  of  peril  and  embarrassment,  and  because  I  then 
neither  flattered  nor  deceived  you,  that  I  now  not  only  offer  to 
you  my  congratulations,  but  put  in  my  claim  to  yours,  on  the  ex- 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  477 

tinction  of  that  peril,  on  the  termination  of  that  embarrassment, 
and  on  the  glorious  issue  to  which  exertion  and  endurance  have 
brought  that  great  struggle  in  which  our  honour  and  our  happi- 
ness were  involved. 

Gentlemen,  during  the  course  of  a  political  life,  nearly  coeval 
with  the  commencement  of  the  war,  I  have  never  given  one  vote, 
I  have  never  uttered  one  sentiment,  which  had  not  for  its  object 
the  consummation  now  happily  within  our  view. 

I  am  not  ashamed,  and  it  is  not  unpleasing  or  unprofitable,  to 
look  back  upon  the  dangers  which  we  have  passed,  and  to  com- 
pare them  with  the  scene  which  now  lies  before  us.  We  behold 
a  country,  inferior  in  population  to  most  of  her  continental  neigh- 
bours, but  multiplying  her  faculties  and  resources  by  her  own  ac- 
tivity and  enterprise,  by  the  vigour  of  her  constitution,  and  by 
the  good  sense  of  her  people;  we  behold  her,  after  standing  up 
against  a  formidable  foe,  throughout  a  contest,  in  the  course  ot 
which  every  one  of  her  allies,  and,  at  times,  all  of  them  together, 
have  fainted  and  failed — nay,  have  been  driven  to  combine  with 
the  enemy  against  her — we  behold  her,  at  this  moment,  rallying 
the  nations  of  Europe  to  one  point,  and  leading  them  to  decisive 
victory. 

If  such  a  picture  were  merely  the  bright  vision  of  speculative 
philosophy,  if  it  were  presented  to  us  in  the  page  of  the  history 
of  ancient  times,  it  would  stir  and  warm  the  heart.  But,  gentle- 
men, this  country  is  our  own;  and  what  must  be  the  feelings 
which  arise,  on  such  a  review,  in  the  bosom  of  every  son  of  that 
country?  What  must  be  the  feelings  of  a  community  such  as  I 
am  now  addressing,  which  constitutes  no  insignificant  part  of  the 
strength  of  the  nation  so  described;  which  has  suffered  largely  in 
her  privations,  and  may  hope  to  participate  proportionably  in  her 
reward?  What  (I  may  be  permitted  to  add)  must  be  the  feelings 
of  one  who  is  chosen  to  represent  that  community,  and  who  finds 
himself  in  that  honourable  station  at  the  moment  of  triumph,  only 
because  he  discountenanced  despair  in  the  moment  of  despon- 
dency? 

From  the  contemplation  of  a  spectacle  so  mighty  and  magnifi- 
cent as  this,  I  should  disdain  to  turn  aside  to  the  controversies  of 
party.  Of  principles,  however,  it  is  impossible  not  to  say  some- 
thing; because  our  triumph  would  be  incomplete,  and  its  blessings 
might  be  transient,  if  we  could  be  led  astray  by  any  sophistry;  if 
we  could  consent,  in  a  sort  of  compromise  of  common  joy,  to 
forget  or  to  misstate  the  causes  from  which  that  triumph  has 
sprung.  All  of  one  mind,  I  trust  and  believe  we  are,  in  exulting 
at  the  success  of  our  country;  all  of  one  mind,  I  trust,  we  now 
are  throughout  this  land,  in  determining  to  persevere,  if  need  be, 
in  strenuous  exertion  to  prosecute,  and  I  hope,  to  perfect  the  great 


47S  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

work  so  happily  in  progress.  But  we  know,  that  there  are  some 
of  those  who  share  most  heartily  in  the  public  exultation,  who 
yet  ascribe  effects,  which  happily  cannot  be  disputed,  to  causes 
which  may  justly  be  denied.  No  tenderness  for  disappointed 
prophecies,  gentlemen,  ought  to  induce  us  thus  to  disconnect  ef- 
fect and  cause.  It  would  lead  to  errors  which  might  be  danger- 
ous, if  unwarily  adopted  and  generally  received. 

We  have  heard,  for  instance,  that  the  war  has  now  been  suc- 
cessful, because  the  principles  on  which  the  war  was  undertaken 
have  been  renounced;  that  we  are,  at  length,  blessed  with  victory, 
because  we  have  thrown  away  the  banner  under  which  we  entered 
into  the  contest;  that  the  contest  was  commenced  with  one  set  of 
principles,  but  that  the  issue  has  been  happily  brought  about  by 
the  adoption  of  another.  Gentlemen,  I  know  of  no  such  change. 
If  we  have  succeeded,  it  has  not  been  by  the  renunciation,  but  by 
the  prosecution  of  our  principles:  if  we  have  succeeded,  it  has  not 
been  by  adopting  new  maxims  of  policy,  but  by  upholding,  under 
all  varieties  of  difficulty  and  discouragement,  old,  established,  in- 
violable principles  of  conduct. 

We  are  told,  that  this  war  has,  of  late,  become  a  war  of  the 
people,  and  that,  by  the  operation  of  that  change  alone,  the  power 
of  imperial  France  has  been  baffled  and  overcome.  Nations,  it  is 
said,  have,  at  length,  made  common  cause  with  their  sovereigns, 
in  a  contest  which,  heretofore,  had  been  a  contest  of  sovereigns 
only.  Gentlemen,  the  fact  of  the  change  might  be  admitted, 
without,  therefore,  admitting  the  argument.  It  does  not  follow, 
that  the  people  were  not  at  all  times  equally  interested  in  the  war, 
(as  those  who  think  as  I  do,  have  always  contended  that  they 
were,)  because  it  may  be  and  must  be  admitted,  that  the  people,  in 
many  countries,  were  for  a  time  deluded.  They  who  argue  against 
us,  say,  that  jarring  interests  have  been  reconciled.  We  say,  that 
gross  delusions  have  been  removed.  Both  admit  the  fact,  that 
sovereigns  and  their  people  are  identified.  But  it  is  for  them 
who  contend  that  this  has  been  effected  by  change  of  principles, 
to  specify  the  change.  What  change  of  principles  or  of  govern- 
ment has  taken  place  among  the  nations  of  Europe  ?  We  are  the 
best  judges  of  ourselves — what  change  has  taken  place  here?  Is 
the  Constitution  other  than  it  was,  when  we  were  told,  (as  we 
often  were  told  in  the  bad  times,)  that  it  was  a  doubt  whether  it 
were  worth  defending?  Is  the  Constitution  other  than  it  was, 
when  we  were  warned  that  peace  on  any  terms  must  be  made,  as 
the  only  hope  of  saving  it  from  popular  indignation  and  popular 
reform  ? 

There  is  yet  another  question  to  be  asked.  By  what  power, 
in  what  part  of  the  world,  has  that  final  blow  been  struck,  which 
has  smitten  the  tyrant  to  the  ground?  I  suppose,  by  some  enlight- 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  479 

ened  republic;  by  some  recently  regenerated  government  of  pure 
philanthropy  and  uncorrupted  virtue:  I  suppose,  by  some  nation 
which,  in  the  excess  of  popular  freedom,  considers  even  a  repre- 
sentative system  as  defective,  unless  each  individual  interferes  di- 
rectly in  the  national  concerns;  some  nation  of  enlightened  pa- 
triots, every  man  of  whom  is  a  politician  in  the  coffee-house,  as 
well  as  in  the  senate:  I  suppose  it  is  from  some  such  government 
as  this  that  the  conqueror  of  autocrats,  the  sworn  destroyer  of 
monarchical  England,  has  met  his  doom.  I  look  through  the  Eu- 
ropean world,  gentlemen,  in  vain:  I  find  there  no  such  august 
community.  But  in  another  hemisphere  I  do  find  such  a  one, 
which,  no  doubt,  must  be  the  political  David  by  whom  the  Goliah 
of  Europe  has  been  brought  down.  What  is  the  name  of  that 
glorious  republic,  to  which  the  gratitude  of  Europe  is  eternally 
due — which,  from  its  innate  hatred  to  tyranny,  has  so  persevering- 
ly  exerted  itself  to  liberate  the  world,  and,  at  last,  has  successfully 
closed  the  contest?  Alas,  gentlemen,  such  a  republic  I  do  indeed 
find;  but  I  find  it  enlisted,  and  (God  be  thanked!)  enlisted  alone, 
under  the  banner  of  the  despot.  But  where  was  the  blow  struck  ? 
Where?  Alas  for  theory!  In  the  wilds  of  despotic  Russia.  It 
was  followed  up  on  the  plains  of  Leipsic — by  Russian,  Prussian, 
and  Austrian  arms. 

But  let  me  not  be  mistaken.  Do  I,  therefore,  mean  to  contend 
— do  I,  therefore,  give  to  our  antagonists  in  the  argument  the  ad- 
vantage of  ascribing  to  us  the  base  tenet,  that  an  absolute  monar- 
chy is  better  than  a  free  government?  God  forbid!  What  I  mean 
is  this,  that,  in  appreciating  the  comparative  excellence  of  politi- 
cal institutions,  in  estimating  the  force  of  national  spirit,  and  the 
impulses  of  national  feeling,  it  is  idle — it  is  mere  pedantry,  to 
overlook  the  affections  of  nature.  The  order  of  nature  could  not 
subsist  among  mankind,  if  there  were  not  an  instinctive  patriot- 
ism; I  do  not  say  unconnected  with,  but  prior  and  paramount  to, 
the  desire  of  political  amelioration.  It  may  be  very  wrong  that 
it  should  be  so.  I  cannot  help  it.  Our  business  is  with  fact. 
And,  surely,  it  is  not  to  be  regretted,  that  tyrants  and  conquerors 
should  have  learned,  from  the  lessons  of  experience,  that  the  first 
consideration  suggested  to  the  inhabitant  of  any  country,  by  a 
foreign  invasion,  is,  not  whether  the  political  constitution  of  the 
state  be  faultlessly  perfect  or  not;  but,  whether  the  altar  at  which 
he  has  worshipped — whether  the  home  in  which  he  has  dwelt 
from  his  infancy — whether  his  wife  and  his  children — whether 
the  tombs  of  his  forefathers — whether  the  place  of  the  sovereign, 
under  whom  he  was  born,  and  to  wbom  he  therefore,  owes  (or,  if 
it  must  be  so  staled,  fancies  that  he,  therefore,  owes)  allegiance, 
shall  be  abandoned  to  violence  and  profanation. 

That,  in  the  infancy  of  the  French  revolution,  many  nations  in 


480  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

Europe  were,  unfortunately,  led  to  believe  and  to  act  upon  a  dif- 
ferent persuasion,  is  undoubtedly  true;  that  whole  countries  were 
overrun  by  reforming  conquerors,  and  flattered  themselves  with 
being  proselytes  till  they  found  themselves  victims.  Even  in  this 
country,  as  I  have  already  said,  there  have  been  times  when  we 
have  been  called  upon  to  consider,  whether  there  was  not  some- 
thing at  home  which  must  be  mended,  before  we  could  hope  to 
repel  a  foreign  invader  with  success. 

It  is  fortunate  for  the  world,  that  this  question  should  have  been 
tried,  if  I  may  so  say,  to  a  disadvantage;  that  it  should  have  been 
tried  in  countries  where  no  man  in  his  senses  will  say,  that  the 
frame  of  political  society  is  such  as,  according  to  the  most  moder- 
ate principles  of  regulated  freedom,  it  ought  to  be; — where,  I  will 
venture  to  say,  without  hazarding  the  imputation  of  being  myself 
a  visionary  reformer,  political  society  is  not  such  as,  after  the  suc- 
cesses of  this  war,  and  from  the  happy  contagion  of  the  example 
of  Great  Britain,  it  is  sure  gradually  to  become.  It  is  fortunate 
for  the  world,  that  this  question  should  have  been  tried  on  its  own 
merits;  that,  after  twenty  years  of  controversy,  we  should  be  au- 
thorized, by  undoubted  results,  to  revert  to  nature  and  to  truth, 
and  to  disentangle  the  genuine  feelings  of  the  heart  from  the  ob- 
structions which  a  cold,  presumptuous,  generalizing  philosophy 
had  wound  around  them. 

One  of  the  most  delightful  poets  of  this  country,  in  describing 
the  various  proportions  of  natural  blessings  and  advantages  dis- 
pensed by  Providence  to  the  various  nations  of  Europe,  turns 
from  the  luxuriant  plains  and  cloudless  skies  of  Italy  to  the  rug- 
ged mountains  of  Switzerland,  and  inquires  whether  there,  also, 
in  those  barren  and  stormy  regions,  the  "  patriot  passion  "  is  found 
equally  imprinted  on  the  heart?  He  decides  the  question  truly  in 
the  affirmative;  and  he  says,  of  the  inhabitant  of  those  bleak 
wilds, 

"  Dear  is  that  shed  to  which  his  soul  conforms, 
And  dear  that  hill  which  lifts  him  to  the  storms; 
And,  as  a  child,  when  scaring  sounds  molest, 
Clings  close  and  closer  to  the  mother's  breast, 
So  the  loud  torrent  and  the  whirlwind's  roar 
But  bind  him  to  his  native  mountains  more." 

What  Goldsmith  thus  beautifully  applied  to  the  physical  varie- 
ties of  soil  and  climate,  has  been  found  no  less  true  with  respect 
to  political  institutions.  A  sober  desire  of  improvement,  a  ra- 
tional endeavour  to  redress  error,  and  to  correct  imperfection  in 
the  political  frame  of  human  society,  are  not  only  natural,  but 
laudable  in  man.  But  it  is  well  that  it  should  have  been  shown, 
by  irrefragable  proof,  that  these  sentiments,  even  where  most 
strongly  and  most  justly  felt,  supersede  not  that  devotion  to  na- 
tive soil  which  is  the  foundation  of  national  independence.     And 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  481 

it  is  right  that  it  should  be  understood  and  remembered,  that  the 
spirit  of  national  independence  alone,  aroused  where  it  had  slum- 
bered, enlightened  where  it  had  been  deluded,  and  kindled  into 
enthusiasm  by  the  insults  and  outrages  of  an  all-grasping  invader, 
has  been  found  sufficient,  without  internal  changes  and  compro- 
mises of  sovereigns  or  governments  with  their  people — without 
relaxations  of  allegiance  and  abjurations  of  authority,  to  animate, 
as  with  one  pervading  soul,  the  different  nations  of  the  continent; 
to  combine,  as  into  one  congenial  mass,  their  various  feelings,  pas- 
sions, prejudices;  to  direct  these  concentrated  energies,  with  one 
impulse,  against  the  common  tyrant;  and  to  shake  (and,  may  we 
not  hope?  to  overthrow)  the  Babel  of  his  iniquitous  power. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  another  argument,  more  peculiarly  relating 
to  our  own  country,  which  has,  at  times,  been  interposed  to  dis- 
courage the  prosecution  of  the  war.  That  this  country  is  suffi- 
cient to  its  own  defence,  sufficient  to  its  own  happiness,  sufficient 
to  its  own  independence;  and  that  the  complicated  combinations 
of  continental  policy  are  always  hazardous  to  our  interests,  as 
well  as  burdensome  to  our  means,  has  been,  at  several  periods  of 
the  war,  a  favourite  doctrine,  not  only  with  those  who,  for  other 
reasons,  wished  to  embarrass  the  measures  of  the  Government, 
but  with  men  of  the  most  enlightened  minds,  of  the  most  benev- 
olent views,  and  the  most  ardent  zeal  for  the  interests  as  well  as 
the  honour  of  their  country.  May  we  not  flatter  ourselves,  that, 
upon  this  point  also,  experience  has  decided  in  favour  of  the  course 
of  policy  which  has  been  actually  pursued  ? 

Can  any  man  now  look  back  upon  the  trial  which  we  have 
gone  through,  and  maintain  that,  at  any  period  during  the  last 
twenty  years,  the  plan  of  insulated  policy  could  have  been  adopt- 
ed, without  having,  in  the  event,  at  this  day,  prostrated  England 
at  the  foot  of  a  conqueror?  Great,  indeed,  has  been  the  call  upon 
our  exertions;  great,  indeed,  has  been  the  drain  upon  our  resour- 
ces; long  and  wearisome  has  the  struggle  been;  and  late  is  the 
moment  at  which  peace  is  brought  within  our  reach.  But,  even 
though  the  difficulties  of  the  contest  may  have  been  enhanced, 
and  its  duration  protracted  by  it,  yet  is  there  any  man  who  seri- 
ously doubts  whether  the  having  associated  our  destinies  with  the 
destinies  of  other  nations  be  or  be  not  that  which,  under  the  bless- 
ing of  Providence,  has  eventually  secured  the  safety  of  all? 

It  is  at  the  moment  when  such  a  trial  has  come  to  its  issue,  that 
it  is  fair  to  ask  of  those  who  have  suffered  under  the  pressure  of 
protracted  exertion,  (and  of  whom  rather  than  of  those  who  are 
assembled  around  me — for  by  whom  have  such  privations  been  felt 
more  sensibly?) — it  is  now,  I  say,  the  time  to  ask  whether,  at  any 
former  period  of  the  contest,  such  a  peace  could  have  been  made 
63  RR 


4&2  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

as  would  at  once  have  guarded  the  national  interests,  and  corres- 
ponded with  the  national  character?  I  address  myself  now  to  such 
persons  only  as  think  the  character  of  a  nation  an  essential  part  of 
its  strength,  and,  consequently,  of  its  safety.  But  if,  among  per- 
sons of  that  description,  there  be  one  who  with  all  his  zeal  for  the 
glory  of  his  country,  has  yet,  at  times,  been  willing  to  abandon 
the  contest  in  mere  weariness  and  despair,  of  such  a  man  I  would 
ask,  whether  he  can  indicate  the  period  at  which  he  now  wishes 
that  such  an  abandonment  had  been  consented  to  by  the  Govern- 
ment and  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain? 

Is  it  when  the  continent  was  at  peace — when,  looking  upon  the 
map  of  Europe,  you  saw  one  mighty  and  connected  system,  one 
great  luminary,  with  his  attendant  satellites  circulating  around 
him;  at  that  period  could  this  country  have  made  peace,  and  have 
remained  at  peace  for  a  twelvemonth  ?  What  is  the  answer  ?  Why, 
that  the  experiment  was  tried.  The  result  was  the  renewal  of 
the  war. 

Was  it  at  a  later  period,  when  the  continental  system  had  been 
established?  When  two-thirds  of  the  ports  of  Europe  were  shut 
against  you  ?  When  but  a  single  link  was  wanting  to  bind  the 
continent  in  a  circling  chain  of  iron,  which  should  exclude  you 
from  intercourse  with  other  nations?  At  that  moment  peace  was 
most  earnestly  recommended  to  you.  At  that  moment,  gentle- 
men, I  first  came  among  you.  At  that  moment  I  ventured  to  re- 
commend to  you  perseverance,  patient  perseverance;  and  to  ex- 
press a  hope  that,  by  the  mere  strain  of  an  unnatural  effort,  the 
massive  bonds  imposed  upon  the  nations  of  the  continent  might, 
at  no  distant  period,  burst  asunder.  I  was  heard  by  you  with  in- 
dulgence— I  know  not  whether  with  conviction.  But  is  it  now 
to  be  regretted,  that  we  did  not,  at  that  moment,  yield  to  the  pres- 
sure of  our  wants,  or  of  our  fears?  What  has  been  the  issue? 
The  continental  system  was  completed,  with  the  sole  exception 
of  Russia,  in  the  year  1812.  In  that  year  the  pressure  upon  this 
country  was  undoubtedly  painful.  Had  we  yielded,  the  system 
would  have  been  immortal.  We  persevered,  and,  before  the  con- 
clusion of  another  year,  the  system  was  at  an  end:  at  an  end,  as 
all  schemes  of  violence  naturally  terminate,  not  by  a  mild  and 
gradual  decay,  such  as  waits  upon  a  regular  and  well-spent  life, 
but  by  sudden  dissolution;  at  an  end,  like  the  breaking  up  of  a 
winter's  frost.  But  yesterday  the  whole  continent,  like  a  mighty 
plain  covered  with  one  mass  of  ice,  presented  to  the  view  a  drear 
expanse  of  barren  uniformity:  to-day,  the  breath  of  heaven  un- 
binds the  earth,  the  streams  begin  to  flow  again,  and  the  inter- 
course of  human  kind  revives. 

Can  we  regret  that  we  did  not,  like  the  fainting  traveller,  lie 
down  to  rest — but,  indeed,  to  perish — under  the  severity  of  that 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  483 

inclement  season  ?  Did  we  not  more  wisely,  to  bear  up,  and  to  wait 
the  change? 

Gentlemen,  I  have  said  that  I  should  be  ashamed,  and  in  truth 
I  should  be  so,  to  address  you  in  the  language  of  exultation,  if  it 
were  merely  for  the  indulgence,  however  legitimate,  of  an  ex- 
uberant and  ungovernable  joy.  But  they  who  have  suffered  great 
privations  have  a  claim  not  merely  to  consolation,  but  to  some- 
thing more.  They  are  justly  to  be  compensated  for  what  they 
have  undergone,  or  lost,  or  hazarded,  by  the  contemplation  of 
what  they  have  gained. 

We  have  gained,  then,  a  rank  and  authority  in  Europe,  such  as, 
for  the  life  of  the  longest  liver  of  those  who  now  hear  me,  must 
place  this  country  upon  an  eminence  which  no  probable  reverses 
can  shake.  We  have  gained,  or  rather  we  have  recovered,  a 
splendour  of  military  glory,  which  places  us  by  the  side  of  the 
greatest  military  nations  in  the  world.  At  the  beginning  of  this 
war,  while  there  was  not  a  British  bosom  that  did  not  beat  with 
rapture  at  the  exploits  of  our  navy,  there  were  few  who  would 
not  have  been  contented  to  compromise  for  that  reputation  alone; 
to  claim  the  sea  as  exclusively  our  province,  and  to  leave  to  France 
and  the  other  continental  powers  the  struggle  for  superiority  by 
land.  That  fabled  deity,  whom  I  see  pourtrayed  upon  the  wall,* 
was  considered  as  the  exclusive  patron  of  British  prowess  in  bat- 
tle; but,  in  seeming  accordance  with  the  beautiful  fiction  of  ancient 
mythology,  our  Neptune,  in  the  heat  of  contest,  smote  the  earth 
with  his  trident,  and  up  sprang  the  fiery  war-horse,  the  emblem 
of  military  power. 

Let  Portugal,  now  led  to  the  pursuit  of  her  flying  conquerors 
— let  liberated  Spain — let  France,  invaded  in  her  turn  by  those 
whom  she  had  overrun  or  menaced  with  invasion,  attest  the  tri- 
umphs of  the  army  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  equality  of  her  mili- 
tary with  her  naval  fame.  And  let  those  who,  even  after  the 
triumphs  of  the  Peninsula  had  begun,  while  they  admitted  that 
we  had  indeed  wounded  the  giant  in  the  heel,  still  deemed  the 
rest  of  his  huge  frame  invulnerable — let  them  now  behold  him 
reeling  under  the  blows  of  united  nations,  and  acknowledge,  at 
once,  the  might  of  British  arms,  and  the  force  of  British  example. 

I  do  not  say  that  these  are  considerations  with  a  view  to  which 
the  war,  if  otherwise  terminable,  ought  to  have  been  purposely 
protracted;  but  I  say  that,  upon  the  retrospect,  we  have  good  rea- 
son to  rejoice,  that  the  war  was  not  closed  ingloriously  and  inse- 
curely, when  the  latter  events  of  it  have  been  such  as  have  estab- 
lished our  security  by  our  glory. 

I  say  we  have  reason  to  rejoice,  that,  during  the  period  when 

*  A  figure  of  Neptune. 


484  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

the  continent  was  prostrate  before  France — that,  especially  during 
the  period  when  the  continental  system  was  in  force,  we  did  not 
shrink  from  the  struggle;  that  we  did  not  make  peace  for  present 
and  momentary  ease,  unmindful  of  the  permanent  safety  and  great- 
ness of  this  country;  that  we  did  not  leave  unsolved  the  momen- 
tous questions,  whether  this  country  could  maintain  itself  against 
France,  unaided  and  alone;  or  with  the  continent  divided;  or  with 
the  continent  combined  against  it;  whether,  when  the  wrath  of  the 
tyrant  of  the  European  world  was  kindled  against  us  with  seven- 
fold fury,  we  could  or  could  not  walk  unharmed  and  unfettered 
through  the  flames? 

I  say  we  have  reason  to  rejoice,  that,  throughout  this  more  than 
Punick  war,  in  which  it  has  so  often  been  the  pride  of  our  ene- 
my to  represent  herself  as  the  Rome,  and  England  as  the  Car- 
thage, of  modern  times,  (with  at  least  this  colour  for  the  compari- 
son, that  the  utter  destruction  of  the  modern  Carthage  has  uni- 
formly been  proclaimed  to  be  indispensable  to  the  greatness  of  her 
rival,) — we  have,  I  say,  reason  to  rejoice,  that,  unlike  our  assigned 
prototype,  we  have  not  been  diverted  by  internal  dissensions  from 
the  vigorous  support  of  a  vital  struggle;  that  we  have  not  suffered 
distress  nor  clamour  to  distract  our  counsels,  or  to  check  the  ex- 
ertions of  our  arms. 

Gentlemen,  for  twenty  years  that  I  have  sat  in  Parliament,  I 
have  been  an  advocate  of  the  war.  You  knew  this  when  you  did 
me  the  honour  to  choose  me  as  your  representative.  I  then  told 
you  that  I  was  the  advocate  of  the  war,  because  I  was  a  lover  of 
peace;  but  of  a  peace  that  should  be  the  fruit  of  honourable  exer- 
tion, a  peace  that  should  have  a  character  of  dignity,  a  peace  that 
should  be  worth  preserving,  and  should  be  likely  to  endure.  I 
confess  I  was  not  sanguine  enough,  at  that  time,  to  hope  that  1 
should  so  soon  have  an  opportunity  of  justifying  my  professions. 
But  I  know  not  why,  six  weeks  hence,  such  a  peace  should  not 
be  made  as  England  may  not  only  be  glad,  but  proud  to  ratify. 
Not  such  a  peace,  gentlemen,  as  that  of  Amiens — a  short  and  fe- 
verish interval  of  unrefreshing  repose.  During  that  peace,  which 
of  you  went  or  sent  a  son  to  Paris,  who  did  not  feel  or  learn  that 
an  Englishman  appeared  in  France  shorn  of  the  dignity  of  his 
country;  with  the  mien  of  a  suppliant,  and  the  conscious  prostra- 
tion of  a  man  who  had  consented  to  purchase  his  gain  or  his  ease 
by  submission?  But  let  a  peace  be  made  to-morrow,  such  as  the 
allies  have  now  the  power  to  dictate,  and  the  meanest  of  the  sub- 
jects of  this  kingdom  shall  not  walk  the  streets  of  Paris  without 
being  pointed  out  as  the  compatriot  of  Wellington;  as  one  of  that 
nation,  whose  firmness  and  perseverance  have  humbled  France 
and  rescued  Europe. 

Ls  there  any  man  that  has  a  heart  in  his  bosom  who  does  not 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  485 

find,  in  the  contemplation  of  this  contrast  alone,  a  recompense  for 
the  struggles  and  the  sufferings  of  years? 

But,  gentlemen,  the  doing  right  is  not  only  the  most  honoura- 
ble course  of  action — it  is  also  the  most  profitable  in  its  result. 
At  any  former  period  of  the  war,  the  independence  of  almost  all 
the  other  countries,  our  allies,  would  have  been  to  be  purchased 
with  sacrifices  profusely  poured  out  from  the  lap  of  British  vic- 
tory. Not  a  throne  to  be  re-established,  not  a  province  to  be 
evacuated,  not  a  garrison  to  be  withdrawn,  but  this  country  would 
have  had  to  make  compensation,  out  of  her  conquests,  for  the 
concessions  obtained  from  the  enemy.  Now,  happily,  this  work 
is  already  done,  either  by  our  efforts  or  to  our  hands.  The  Pen- 
insula free — the  lawful  commonwealth  of  European  states  already, 
in  a  great  measure,  restored,  Great  Britain  may  now  appear  in 
the  congress  of  the  world,  rich  in  conquests,  nobly  and  rightfully 
won,  with  little  claim  upon  her  faith  or  her  justice,  whatever 
may  be  the  spontaneous  impulse  of  her  generosity  or  her  moder- 
ation. 

Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  situation  and  prospect  of  affairs  at  the 
moment  at  which  I  have  the  honour  to  address  you.  That  you, 
gentlemen,  may  have  your  full  share  in  the  prosperity  of  your 
country,  is  my  sincere  and  earnest  wish.  The  courage  with  which 
you  bore  up  in  adverse  circumstances,  eminently  entitles  you  to 
this  reward. 

For  myself,  gentlemen,  while  I  rejoice  in  your  returning  pros- 
perity, I  rejoice  also  that  our  connexion  began  under  auspices  so 
much  less  favourable;  that  we  had  an  opportunity  of  knowing 
each  other's  minds  in  times  when  the  minds  of  men  are  brought 
to  the  proof — times  of  trial  and  difficulty.  I  had  the  satisfaction 
of  avowing  to  you,  and  you  the  candour  and  magnanimity  to  ap- 
prove, the  principles  and  opinions  by  which  my  public  conduct 
has  uniformly  been  guided,  at  a  period  when  the  soundness  of 
those  opinions,  and  the  application  of  those  principles,  was  matter 
of  doubt  and  controversy.  I  thought,  and  I  said,  at  the  time  of 
our  first  meeting,  that  the  cause  of  England  and  of  civilized  Eu- 
rope must  be  ultimately  triumphant,  if  we  but  preserved  our 
spirit  untainted,  and  our  constancy  unshaken.  Such  an  assertion 
was,  at  that  time,  the  object  of  ridicule  with  many  persons:  a  sin- 
gle year  has  elapsed,  and  it  is  now  the  voice  of  the  whole  world. 

Gentlemen,  we  may,  therefore,  confidently  indulge  the  hope, 
that  our  opinions  will  continue  in  unison;  that  our  concurrence 
will  be  as  cordial  as  it  has  hitherto  been,  if,  unhappily,  any  new 
occasion  of  difficulty  or  embarrassment  should  hereafter  arise. 

At  the  present  moment,  I  am  sure,  we  are  equally  desirous  to 
bury  the  recollection  of  all  our  differences  with  others  in  that  gen- 
eral feeling  of  exultation  in  which  all  opinions  happily  combine. 

RR* 


486 


SPEECH 

AT    LIVERPOOL,    AFTER    HAVING    BEEN    CHAIRED,   THE    12TH    OF 

JUNE,   1816. 

Gentlemen, 

If  I  could  forget  all  the  trouble  and  inconvenience  which  have 
been  occasioned  to  you,  and  could  contemplate  the  result  of  this 
day  only  as  it  affects  myself,  what  reason  should  I  not  have  to 
pour  forth  my  gratitude  to  those  men  who  have  laboured  against 
me  with  so  vexatious  an  opposition!  For,  with  whatever  spirit  and 
design  they  may  have  acted,  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  never 
did  the  most  anxious  and  active  friendship  procure  for  any  indi- 
vidual such  a  triumph  as  their  hostility  has  earned  for  me  this 
day.  They  laboured  to  separate  us  from  each  other;  and  they 
have  united  us  more  closely  than  before.  They  hoped  to  efface 
the  memory  of  that  victory  which  crowned  your  former  exertions 
in  my  favour:  and  they  have,  if  not  effaced,  yet  thrown  it  into  the 
shade,  by  the  transcendant  splendour  of  this  day's  triumph,  by 
the  increased  and  overpowering  demonstrations  of  your  unwearied 
kindness  and  regard.  Indebted  to  my  opponents  for  the  excite- 
ment which  has  called  forth  these  demonstrations,  what  a  heart 
must  I  have,  gentlemen,  if  I  did  not  bless  their  beneficent  en- 
mity! 

But,  gentlemen,  proud  as  I  naturally  must  be  of  what  I  have 
experienced  this  day,  and  exalted  as  I  cannot  but  feel  myself  by 
the  contemplation  of  the  magnificent  scene  which  is  now  before 
me,  by  the  view  of  those  countless  multitudes,  among  which 
every  eye  is  turned  upon  me  with  an  expression  of  benignity; 
yet  I  do  assure  you,  gentlemen,  and  there  are  those  around  me 
who  can  vouch  for  the  truth  of  what  I  say,  that  I  was  most  anx- 
ious— that  it  was  my  fixed  purpose  and  determination,  to  entreat 
you  to  spare  yourselves  the  trouble  of  this  day's  ceremony.  I 
did  not  think  that  the  occasion  of  returning  your  representative, 
on  a  re-election,  called  for  any  peculiar  expression  of  triumph; 
nor  did  I  think,  that  a  victory  over  a  non-existing,  or  non-appear- 
ing adversary,  justified  the  same  marks  of  exultation  as  when 
able,  substantial  antagonists  had  been  driven  from  the  field. 

But,  gentlemen,  my  mind  was  changed,  and  I  yielded  to  the 
wishes  of  my  friends,  upon  information  which  I  have  received  to- 
day. The  nature  of  tbat  information  I  will  state  to  you.  I  am 
assured  from  London,  and  upon  testimony  from  which  it  is  im- 
possible for  me  to  withhold  my  belief,  that  there  were  among  our 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  487 

antagonists  some  who  reckoned  upon  intimidation  as  an  instru- 
ment of  success.  In  the  first  moments  of  transport,  at  the  prom- 
ising commencement  of  the  riots,  they  communicated  this  hope 
to  their  friends  in  the  metropolis.  They  fondly  flattered  them- 
selves that  you,  gentlemen,  could  be  scared  from  my  side,  and 
that  I  should  be  forced  to  retire.  Intimidation!  how  little  do 
they  know  either  me  or  you!  After  this  information,  I  felt  that 
it  would  be  a  false  delicacy  to  abstain  from  any  expression  of  ex- 
ultation, and  that  our  conduct  might  be  liable  to  misconstruction, 
if  we  abridged,  by  a  single  formality,  the  triumph  of  this  day. 

Gentlemen,  with  the  election,  let  the  local  topics,  the  local  en- 
mities, the  local  disagreements  of  the  election  cease.  But  cease 
not  with  the  election  the  principles  upon  which  your  choice  has 
been  founded,  on  whomever,  at  any  time  hereafter,  your  choice 
may  fall,  whether  on  myself  or  on  a  worthier  object.  For,  gen- 
tlemen, I  know  how  little  I  ought  to  consider  myself  as  contri- 
buting to  the  glorious  result  of  this  contest.  Much  less  important 
is  it  to  whom,  individually,  you  commit  your  representation  in 
Parliament,  than  that  you  should  fix  steadily  in  your  minds  the 
standard  by  which  that  representative  shall  be  tried.  Let  him 
be  a  man  true  to  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  not  as  under- 
stood in  the  new-fangled  doctrines  of  the  day,  but  as  transmitted 
to  us  from  older  times,  before  the  pure  current  of  British  free- 
dom had  been  contaminated  by  the  influx  of  foreign  theories. 

Gentlemen,  we  all  know,  that,  on  the  former  occasion,  in  IS  12, 
the  eyes  of  England  were,  in  a  great  measure,  fixed  upon  Liver- 
pool, as  the  arena  in  which  the  contest  between  two  sets  of  po- 
litical principles  was  to  be  decided.  But  on  that  occasion,  gen- 
tlemen, though  you  occupied  a  great  space  in  the  public  attention, 
you  could  not  completely  monopolize  it.  There  was  then  a  gen- 
eral election.  The  interest  excited,  indeed,  by  the  Liverpool 
contest,  was  pretty  widely  diffused,  but  the  actual  war  was  among 
ourselves;  no  stranger  had  leisure  to  mingle  in  our  battle.  Among 
other  consequences  of  this  state  of  things,  one  was,  that  we 
were  tolerably  free  from  imported  calumny;  and  that,  consid- 
ering the  vehemence  of  the  contest,  there  was,  so  far  as  I  know, 
little  of  personal  malignity  mixed  with  it.  In  the  present  in- 
stance, Liverpool  alone  has  fixed  the  undistracted  attention  of 
both  parties,  and  upon  me,  in  particular,  have  the  full  phials  of 
whiggish  wrath  been  discharged. 

Standing  thus  exposed,  I  have  had  what  some  would  call  the 
misfortune,  but  what  I  must  now  esteem  the  singular  happiness, 
of  being  a  mark  for  the  attacks  of  every  political  enemy  that  I 
have  in  the  world.  I  do  Liverpool  the  justice  to  acknowledge, 
gentlemen,  that  the  grossest  and  foulest  calumnies  are  not  of  na- 
tive produce,  but  have  been  rolled  down,  in  one  tide  of  filth, 


488  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

from  the  fountain  head  of  whiggish  detraction  in  London.  All 
the  approved  practices  of  the  libellers  of  former  periods  have 
been  resorted  to:  my  private  history  ransacked  for  topics  of 
abuse;  every  action,  every  inconsiderate  word,  of  earlier  life 
raked  up,  and  recorded  with  malignant  industry;  and  invention 
called  in  aid  where  research  could  find  no  theme  of  invective: — 

"The  lie,  so  oft  o'erthrown, 

Th'  imputed  trash  and  nonsense,  not  my  own;" 

— all,  all  has  been  exhausted:  and  what  is  the  result?  That  here 
I  stand. 

Gentlemen,  amongst  other  charges,  one  of  fair  hostility,  but 
whimsically  chosen,  considering  the  quarter  from  which  it  comes, 
is  that  of  my  being  about  to  act  in  public  life  with  men  from 
whom  I  have  occasionally  differed  in  opinion.  Gentlemen,  the 
charge  is  substantially  unfounded.  It  is  unfounded,  because, 
though,  on  particular  questions,  I  may  have  differed  from  many 
of  my  present  colleagues  (as  what  two  men  may  not  occasionally 
differ,  if  each  has  an  opinion  of  his  own?)  yet,  upon  all  the 
great  outlines  of  our  political  system,  and  upon  every  main  prin- 
ciple affecting  the  foreign  policy  of  England,  our  opinions  have 
generally  concurred.  Those  opinions  I  have,  to  the  best  of  my 
power,  supported,  in  whatever  hands  the  government  of  the  coun- 
try has  been  placed.  I  have  supported  them  not  less  strenuously 
when  myself  out  of  office,  than  when  I  formed  a  part  of  the  Ad- 
ministration. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  really  alarmed  at  the  state  of  pressure  in 
which  I  see  great  part  of  the  multitude  below.  Had  I  not  better 
take  leave  of  you,  and  entreat  you  to  disperse?* 

Perhaps,  gentlemen,  I  was  the  more  alive  to  the  danger  to 
which  I  apprehended  you  to  be  exposed,  and  the  more  anxious  to 
dismiss  you  before  any  accident  had  happened,  from  recollecting, 
that  one  of  the  charges  most  frequently,  of  late,  preferred  against 
me  is,  my  habit  of  addressing  you.  And  yet,  gentlemen,  I  am 
old  enough  to  remember,  when  the  great  idol  of  whiggism  him- 
self t  (of  whom  I  mean  to  speak  with  all  reverence  and  honour,) 
in  the  plenitude  of  his  glory,  and  in  the  maturity  of  his  mighty 
powers,  did  not  disdain  to  mount  various  rostra,  and  to  descant, 
not  to  his  constituents  only,  but  to  whoever  would  come  to  hear 
him,  upon  oppression,  grievance,  tyranny,  taxes,  and  war,  and  all 
other  matters  best  calculated  to  rouse  the  passions  of  the  populace. 
Nor  are  there  wanting  imitators  in  our  days,  who  pursue  the 
same  course,  whenever  the  people  will  listen  to  them. 

*  Mr.  Canning  retired  for  a  few  moments,  until  the  pressure  of  the  crowd 
had,  in  some  measure,  diminished ;  and  then,  being  loudly  and  repeatedly  called 
for,  again  came  forward. 

t  The  Right  Honourable  Charles  James  Fox. 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  489 

But,  gentlemen,  the  self-styled  whigs  have  a  most  convenient, 
though  somewhat  arbitrary,  mode  of  argument.  To  them  every 
mode  of  political  warfare  is  lawful;  but  to  them  only:  the  people 
are  their  property;  and  wo  be  to  the  unlicensed  intruder  who 
presumes  to  trespass  upon  the  manor.  Or  is  this  the  distinction 
to  be  taken  against  me?  Am  I  vilified,  not  because  I  address  the 
people,  but  because  I  address  them  on  the  side  of  tranquillity 
and  good  order?  That,  instead  of  seeking  out  every  topic  of  de- 
lusion and  inflammation,  I  am  more  solicitous  to  bring  before 
them  grounds  for  contentment,  and  motives  of  attachment  to  their 
country, — to  inculcate  their  duties  as  well  as  their  rights,  and  to 
hold  them  firm  in  their  allegiance  to  the  constitutional  monarchy 
of  England?  Am  I  arraigned  on  an  inverted  construction  of  the 
rules  of  civilized  warfare,  not  because  I  scatter  arrows  among  the 
people,  but  because  my  arrows  are  not  poisoned? 

But,  gentlemen,  to  recur  to  the  point  at  which  I  was  inter- 
rupted by  my  alarm  for  your  safety.  By  the  organ  of  what 
party  is  it  that  I  am  accused  of  inconsistency,  for  acting  with 
men  from  whom  I  may  have  occasionally  differed  ?  Why,  gen- 
tlemen, by  the  organ  of  a  party  whose  birth  and  growth,  whose 
essence  and  element,  are  coalition;  a  party  which  sprung  from 
the  coalition  between  Lord  North  and  Mr.  Fox,  and  which  has 
been  revived,  within  all  our  memories,  by  the  coalition  between 
Lord  Grenville  and  Lord  Grey;  a  party  of  which,  in  spite  of  all 
its  coalitions,  the  members  are,  in  reality,  so  little  coalescent, 
that,  but  last  year,  on  the  greatest  question  which  ever  the  Gov- 
ernment of  this  country  was  called  upon  to  decide  and  its  Parlia- 
ment to  sanction — on  the  question  of  the  renewal  of  the  war 
against  Buonaparte — they  were  divided  half  and  half:  and  all 
that  was  of  most  weight  or  ornament  in  their  party,  fought  the 
battle  of  the  Ministers  against  the  remainder.  The  remainder, 
indeed,  true  to  their  old  creed,  would  have  extended  the  doctrine 
of  coalition  to  Buonaparte.  But  you,  gentlemen,  I  know,  have 
candour  enough  to  do  justice  to  public  men,  of  whatever  party, 
when  they  stand  up  fairly  for  their  country;  and  you  remember, 
with  just  acknowledgment,  that  the  manly  and  consistent  elo- 
quence of  Lord  Grenville,  the  splendid  enthusiasm  of  Grattan, 
and  the  commanding  energy  of  Plunkett,  were  exerted,  on  that 
memorable  occasion,  in  defence  of  that  system  of  measures,  by 
which,  in  defiance  of  the  whig  policy,  this  country  and  Europe 
have  been  preserved. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  yet  a  heavier  charge  than  either  of  those 
which  I  have  stated  to  you.  It  is,  gentlemen,  that  I  am  an  ad- 
venturer. To  this  charge,  as  I  understand  it,  I  am  willing  to  plead 
guilty.  A  representative  of  the  people,  I  am  one  of  the  people; 
and  I  present  myself  to  those  who  choose  me  only  with  the 
64 


490  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

claims  of  character,  (be  they  what  they  may,)  unaccredited  by 
patrician  patronage  or  party  recommendation.  Nor  is  it  in  this 
free  country,  where,  in  every  walk  of  life,  the  road  of  honoura- 
ble success  is  open  to  every  individual — I  am  sure  it  is  not  in 
this  place,  that  I  shall  be  expected  to  apologize  for  so  presenting 
myself  to  your  choice.  I  know  there  is  a  political  creed,  which 
assigns  to  a  certain  combination  of  great  families  a  right  to  dictate 
to  the  sovereign  and  to  influence  the  people;  and  that  this  doc- 
Irine  of  hereditary  aptitude  for  administration  is,  singularly 
enough,  most  prevalent  among  those  who  find  nothing  more 
laughable  than  the  principle  of  legitimacy  in  the  Crown. 

To  this  theory  I  have  never  subscribed.  If  to  depend  directly 
upon  the  people,  as  their  representative  in  Parliament;  if,  as  a 
servant  of  the  Crown,  to  lean  on  no  other  support  than  that  of 
public  confidence — if  that  be  to  be  an  adventurer,  I  plead  guilty 
to  the  charge,  and  I  would  not  exchange  that  situation,  to  what- 
ever taunts  it  may  expose  me,  for  all  the  advantages  which  might 
be  derived  from  an  ancestry  of  a  hundred  generations. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  not  detain  you  longer.  I  have  said,  that  I 
will  not  go  back  to  any  of  the  events  of  the  election.  Suffice  it, 
that,  whatever  may  be  my  opinion  with  respect  to  the  opposition 
which  has  been  made  to  your  wishes  in  my  favour,  I  can  truly 
say  for  myself,  that  I  carry  no  resentments  away  with  me.  Even 
were  I  disposed  to  entertain  any  such  feelings,  my  heart  would 
not,  at  this  moment,  have  room  for  them,  so  full  is  it  of  the 
sense  of  your  kindnesses,  of  acknowledgment,  and  of  exultation. 


491 


SPEECH 

at  the  public  dinner  at  liverpool,  in  the  music  hall, 
on  monday,  the  29th  of  june,  1818,  after  his  health 
had  been  drunk. 

Gentlemen, 

It  was  at  my  suggestion,  that  your  worthy  chairman  had  the 
goodness  to  make  a  slight  alteration  in  the  order  of  the  toasts  as 
they  stand  on  the  printed  card,  and  to  propose,  before  my  health, 
which  you  have  just  done  me  the  honour  to  drink,  the  health  of 
those  persons  by  whose  suffrages  I  have  been  elevated  to  the 
situation  of  your  representative,  and  of  those  who,  had  their  suf- 
frages been  wanted,  would  have  contributed  to  that  elevation.  It 
is  in  the  natural  order  of  things,  gentlemen,  that  cause  should 
precede  effect;  and,  before  you  expressed  your  rejoicing  on  my 
return,  I  was  anxious  that  due  acknowledgment  should  have 
been  paid  to  those  whose  votes,  or  whose  intentions  to  come  for- 
ward,— intentions  as  notorious  and  as  efficacious  as  their  votes, — 
gave  effect  to  the  wishes  of  this  great  community  in  my  favour. 

Gentlemen,  six  years  have  elapsed  since  I  was  first  placed  in 
that  envied  situation.  Search  the  records  of  history,  where  shall 
we  find  six  years  so  fertile  in  events;  and  in  events  not  only  of 
such  immense  importance,  but  of  such  various  character, — at  one 
time  so  awful  and  appalling,  at  another  so  full  of  encouragement 
and  of  glory?  We  have,  within  this  period  of  time,  had  war — 
peace — war  again — and  again  a  peace,  which,  I  flatter  myself,  is 
now  settling  itself  for  a  long  duration. 

In  many  of  those  changes,  gentlemen,  as  they  were  taking 
place,  and  with  respect  to  all  of  them  while  they  were  yet  in 
doubtful  futurity,  the  opinions  which  I  hold  with  you,  and  by 
holding  which  with  you  I  am  alone  worthy  to  represent  you,  have 
been  controverted  by  predictions  which,  in  prospect,  it  would 
have  been  presumptuous  to  dispute,  but  which,  in  retrospect,  it  is 
now  pleasant  to  contemplate. 

When  I  first,  in  obedience  to  your  call,  presented  myself  before 
you,  it  was  at  that  period  of  a  war,  already  of  near  twenty  years' 
duration,  in  which  the  crisis  of  the  fate  of  nations  seemed  to  be 
arrived.  It  was  at  that  period  of  the  campaign,  destined  to  be 
decisive  of  that  war,  in  which  the  enemy  appeared  in  his  most 
gigantic  dimensions,  and  had  begun  to  run  his  most  extravagant 
career.  It.  would  be  little  disparagement  to  the  stoutest  heart  to 
say,  that  it  shrunk  from  the  contemplation  of  a  might  so  over- 


492  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

whelming;  and  it  required,  perhaps,  as  much  courage  as  sagacity 
to  derive,  from  the  ill-compounded  materials  of  the  colossus,  a 
hope  or  an  expectation  of  its  fall.  We  were,  indeed,  loudly  told 
at  that  time,  that  resistance  was  altogether  hopeless;  and  you, 
gentlemen,  were  encouraged  to  believe,  that  if,  by  rejecting  me, 
whose  politics  were  supposed  to  be  identified  with  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  war,  and  by  returning  to  Parliament,  as  your  repre- 
sentatives, those  who  then  solicited  your  suffrages  in  opposition 
to  me,  you  would  mark  your  disapprobation  of  the  continuance 
of  so  hopeless  a  contest,  you  would,  by  this  demonstration  of  the 
opinion  of  so  considerable  a  part  of  the  British  empire,  infallibly 
produce  a  peace,  with  all  its  attendant  blessings. 

Against  these  fallacious  but  inviting  assurances,  with  all  the  re- 
sponsibility that  belonged  to  the  anticipation  of  brighter  prospects 
in  the  midst  of  overwhelming  gloom,  and  to  the  denial  of  associa- 
tions familiar  in  the  mouths  and  in  the  minds  of  men,  I  ventured 
to  tell  you  that  peace  was  not  in  your  power,  except  through  the 
road  of  victory;  and  I  ventured  to  tell  you  further,  that  peace,  if 
sought  through  any  other  path,  would  not  be  lasting;  and  that, 
come  when  it  might,  it  would  not  come,  in  the  first  instance,  with 
all  the  blessings  of  ordinary  peace  in  its  train. 

At  the  end  of  the  period  which  has  elapsed,  compare  what  I 
then  said  to  you  with  what  has  actually  taken  place. 

If,  at  the  time  of  which  I  am  speaking,  in  1812,  this  great  town 
had  contributed  its  share  towards  forcing  a  change  in  the  national 
councils,  by  rejecting  the  man  whose  political  existence  was  iden- 
tified with  the  success  of  the  war,  and  by  choosing  others  in  his 
room  whose  reputation  depended  upon  its  failure;  and  if,  gentle- 
men, you  had  had  the  misfortune  to  succeed  in  forcing  such  a 
change,  I  ask  you  whether  you  believe  that  England  would  have 
stood  erect,  as  she  has  done,  with  her  enemy  prostrate  at  her  feet, 
and  with  Europe  saved  by  her  assistance? 

But,  gentlemen,  as  if  to  defeat  and  discredit  the  professors  of 
political  prophecy,  you  have  had  also  a  trial  of  peace,  not  wholly 
corresponding  with  their  anticipations.  I  told  you,  in  1812,  that 
nothing  was  easier  than  to  draw  flattering  views  of  distant  pros- 
pects; but  that  there  were  circumstances  to  be  taken  into  account 
in  the  estimate  of  war  and  peace  which  baffled  calculation.  I  told 
you  that  the  war  (not  war  generally,  as  has  falsely  been  impu- 
ted, but  the  war  in  which  we  were  then  engaged)  was,  from  its 
peculiar  character,  one  in  which,  though  the  common  characteris- 
tics of  peace — such  as  tranquillity  and  absence  of  bloodshed,  and 
freedom  from  alarm,  were  necessarily  suspended,  yet  the  springs 
of  enterpise  were  not  cut  off,  nor  the  activity  of  commerce  alto- 
gether paralyzed:  nor  would  the  restoration  of  peace  necessarily 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 


493 


and  at  once  restore  the  state  of  things  which  so  long  and  so  ex- 
traordinary a  war  had  interrupted. 

And  why,  gentlemen  ?  Because  I  was  desirous,  as  was,  I  say, 
falsely  imputed  to  me,  of  dissociating  the  natural  combinations  of 
war  and  peace  from  their  respective  attributes? — of  holding  out 
war  as,  for  its  own  sake  desirable,  and  peace  as,  in  itself,  unlove- 
ly? No,  gentlemen;  but  because  I  wished  to  represent  to  you 
things  as  they  really  were,  or,  at  least,  as,  in  my  own  honest  judg- 
ment, I  saw  them;  because  I  wished  to  dissipate  the  prejudices 
which  were  attempted  to  be  raised  against  a  war  on  the  issue  of 
which  our  national  existence  depended,  by  pressing  into  the  ser- 
vice those  common-place  arguments  against  war  which,  however 
abstractedly  true,  were  not  true  as  to  the  war  in  question;  and  by 
holding  out  all  those  common-place  inducements  to  peace,  which, 
though  also  true  in  the  abstract,  could  not  have  been  true  of  any 
peace  concluded  on  ignominous  terms,  and  have  not  been  found 
true  of  the  first  years  of  a  peace  succeeding  to  a  war  of  such  un- 
exampled effort  and  protraction. 

That  the  war  had  had  the  effect  of  opening  unusual  channels  of 
commercial  enterprise;  that  it  had  given  a  new  and  extraordinary 
stimulus  to  commercial  activity  and  enterprise;  that  the  war  had 
created — I  do  not  say  a  wholesome,  I  do  not  say  a  substantial,  I 
do  not  say  a  permanent  prosperity;  but  that  it  had  created  a  pros- 
perity peculiar  to  itself,  and  which  atoned,  in  some  measure,  for 
its  evils,  and  enabled  the  country,  in  some  measure,  to  bear  up 
against  the  difficulties  incident  to  war;  all  these  were  matters  of 
fact,  which,  as  such,  I  stated  to  you — and  stated  them  as  affording, 
not  motives,  but  consolations — not  inducements  to  prolong,  be- 
yond necessity,  a  war  which  might  be  safely  terminated  at  will, 
but  reasons  for  bearing  patiently  evils  to  which  it  was  not  in  our 
power  to  put  an  end.  That  this  was  a  forced  and  unnatural  state 
of  things,  neither  I  nor  any  man  pretended  to  deny;  but  whether 
we  alone  could  enjoy  a  sound  and  natural  repose,  in  the  forced 
and  unnatural  state  of  Europe — whether  any  peace  which  could 
be  made  by  us,  while  all  Europe  remained  under  the  control  of 
our  enemy,  would  be  a  peace  worthy  of  the  name;  this  was  a 
question  which  might  fairly  be  mooted,  without  depreciating  the 
blessings  of  peace,  or  denying  the  general  preferableness  of  peace 
to  war.  Our  adversaries  represented  the  war  as  uncompensated 
evil  and  voluntary  self-infliction:  peace,  as  unqualified  prosperity, 
and  as  immediately  within  our  grasp.  My  business — the  business 
of  truth — was  to  show,  that  the  war — though  all  war  is  full  of 
evil — had  yet  mitigations,  and.  besides,  would  not  cease  at  our 
bidding;  that  peace  would  not  come  at  our  call,  and,  besides,  that 
when  it  came,  it  would  bring  with  it  its  privations.  The  stimulus 
of  the  war  withdrawn,  manufacturing  industry  would  necessarily 

ss 


494  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

languish:  the  channels  of  commerce,  forced  open  by  the  war, 
having  closed,  commercial  enterprise  must  necessarily  be  checked 
till  new  channels  were  explored;  and  the  mere  cessation  of  the 
"  trade  of  war"  itself,  in  all  its  various  branches,  must  both  dis- 
continue the  occupation  of  a  population  which  it  had  created,  and 
throw  additional  crowds  on  occupations  already  overstocked. 
Here  were  causes  sufficient  for  the  inevitable  privations  and  de- 
rangements of  a  first  year  of  peace  after  any  war,  but  much  more 
after  a  war  of  such  extraordinary  magnitude  and  extension. 

It  required  no  great  sagacity  to  forsee  these  things;  but,  in 
those  who  did  forsee  them,  it  would  have  been,  at  least,  disingen- 
uous to  assert — or  to  suffer  the  assertions  to  go  uncontroverted — 
that  the  war  was  our  single  and  voluntary  suffering,  and  that  peace 
was  not  only  attainable,  but  would  be  an  instant  and  perfect  cure. 

Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  true  account  of  that  temporary  stagna- 
tion of  commercial  industry  and  enterprise  which  has  been  insid- 
iously imputed  to  national  exhaustion;  of  the  difficulty  in  provi- 
ding employment  for  an  exuberant  population  (the  harvest  of  a 
long  war)  upon  the  sudden  return  of  peace,  and  before  the  world 
had  yet  righted  itself  after  all  its  convulsions. 

Either  our  antagonists  foresaw  these  immediate  and  necessary 
consequences  of  the  discontinuance  of  war,  or  they  did  not.  If 
they  did  forsee  them,  would  it  not  have  been  fair  to  have  shaded 
a  little  more  carefully  the  bright  prospects  which  they  painted  of 
the  peace  to  come  ?  If  not,  would  it  not  be  fair  in  them  to  ac- 
knowledge, that  they  had  been  too  sanguine  in  their  anticipa- 
tions? But,  what  surely  is  not  fair  nor  reasonable  is,  that  no 
sooner  was  the  peace  which  they  had  so  long  clamoured  for  ob- 
tained, than  they  proceeded  with  as  much  pathos  as  they  had 
bestowed  upon  the  evils  of  war,  to  deplore  the  sufferings  of  that 
moment  which  they  had  predicted  as  one  of  unqualified  happi- 
ness. 

They  began  their  lamentations  over  languishing  industry,  and 
stinted  commerce,  and  unemployed  population;  as  if  these  evils 
were  not  the  natural  and  necessary  consequences  of  unavoidably 
operating  causes;  as  if  they  were  the  creation  of  some  malignant 
influence,  which,  whether  in  war  or  in  peace,  blighted  the  desti- 
nies of  the  country. 

Is  it  intended  to  maintain  this  proposition,  that,  in  order  to  pro- 
duce the  blessings  with  which  peace  ought  to  be  accompanied, 
the  war  ought  to  have  been  concluded  with  defeat,  and  the  peace 
to  have  been  a  peace  of  humiliation?  If  so,  I  can  understand  the 
arguments  and  acknowledge  the  consistency  of  those  who  pretend 
to  have  been  disappointed  at  the  tardy  reappearance  of  the  bless- 
ings which  they  promised  us;  for,  undoubtedly,  the  war  was  con- 
cluded with  triumphs,  which  must  have  deranged  all  the  anticipa- 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  495 

tions  which  were  founded  on  the  basis  of  unconditional  surrender 
and  submission. 

But,  gentlemen,  labouring  as  I  do  under  the  imputation  of  being 
a  great  lover  of  war,  I  am  almost  afraid  to  say,  that  there  are  some 
things  in  the  war  which  I  regret,  and  some  things  in  the  peace  which 
I  like  as  little  as  even  those  privations  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking,  but  which  are,  happily,  in  a  course  of  daily  diminution. 
The  war  divided  the  political  parties  of  the  country  on  one  great 
question,  which  involved  and  absorbed  all  minor  considerations. 
j  With  war,  party  has  not  ceased;  but  our  differences  are  of  a  sort 
more  ignoble  and  more  alarming.  The  line  of  demarcation  dur- 
ing the  war  was — resistance  or  non-resistance  to  a  foreign  enemy: 
the  line  of  demarcation  now  is — maintenance  or  subversion  of  our 
internal  institutions. 

Gentlemen,  it  does  seem  somewhat  singular,  and  I  conceive 
that  the  historian  of  future  times  will  be  at  a  loss  to  imagine  how 
it  should  happen,  that,  at  this  particular  period,  at  the  close  of  a 
war  of  such  unexampled  brilliancy,  in  which  this  country  had  acted 
a  part  so  much  beyond  its  physical  strength  and  its  apparent  re- 
sources, there  should  arise  a  sect  of  philosophers  in  this  country, 
who  begin  to  suspect  something  rotten  in  the  British  Constitu- 
tion. The  history  of  Europe  for  the  last  twenty-five  years,  is 
something  like  this.  A  power  went  forth,  animated  with  the 
spirit  of  evil,  to  overturn  every  community  of  the  civilized  world. 
Before  this  dreadful  assailant,  empires,  and  monarchies,  and  re- 
publics bowed:  some  were  crushed  to  the  earth,  and  some  bought 
their  safety  by  compromise.  In  the  midst  of  this  wide-spread 
ruin,  among  tottering  columns  and  falling  edifices,  one  fabric  alone 
stood  erect  and  braved  the  storm;  and  not  only  provided  for  its 
own  internal  security,  but  sent  forth,  at  every  portal,  assistance 
to  its  weaker  neighbours.  On  this  edifice  floated  that  ensign, 
[pointing  to  the  English  ensign,]  a  signal  of  rallying  to  the  com- 
batant, and  of  shelter  to  the  fallen. 

To  an  impartial  observer — I  will  not  say  to  an  inhabitant  of 
this  little  fortress — to  an  impartial  observer,  in  whatever  part  of 
the  world,  one  should  think  something  of  this  sort  would  have 
occurred.  Here  is  a  fabric  constructed  upon  some  principles  not 
common  to  others  in  its  neighbourhood;  principles  which  enable 
it  to  stand  erect  while  every  thing  is  prostrate  around  it.  In  the 
construction  of  this  fabric  there  must  be  some  curious  felicity, 
which  the  eye  of  the  philosopher  would  be  well  employed  in  in- 
vestigating, and  which  its  neighbours  may  profit  by  adopting. 
This,  I  say,  gentlemen,  would  have  been  an  obvious  inference. 
But  what  shall  we  think  of  their  understandings  who  draw  an  in- 
ference directly  the  reverse  ?  and  who  say  to  us — "You  have  stood 
when  others  have  fallen;  when   others  have  crouched,  you  have 


496  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

borne  yourselves  aloft;  you  alone  have  resisted  the  power  which 
has  shaken  and  swallowed  up  half  the  civilized  world.  We  like 
not  this  auspicious  peculiarity.  There  must  be  something;  wrong 
in  your  internal  conformation."  With  this  unhappy  curiosity,  and 
in  the  spirit  of  this  perverse  analysis,  they  proceed  to  dissect  our 
Constitution.  They  find  that,  like  other  states,  we  have  a  monarch; 
that  a  nobility,  though  not  organized  like  ours,  is  common  to  all 
the  great  empires  of  Europe;  but  that  our  distinction  lies  in  a  pop- 
ular assembly,  which  gives  life,  and  vigour,  and  strength  to  the 
whole  frame  of  the  Government.  Here,  therefore,  they  find  the 
seat  of  our  disease.  Our  peccant  part  is,  undoubtedly,  the  House 
of  Commons.  Hence  our  presumptuous  exemption  from  what  was 
the  common  lot  of  all  our  neighbours:  the  anomaly  ought  forthwith 
to  be  corrected ;  and,  therefore,  the  House  of  Commons  must  be 
reformed. 

Gentlemen,  it  cannot  but  have  struck  you  as  somewhat  extra- 
ordinary, that  whereas,  in  speaking  of  foreign  sovereigns,  our  re- 
formers are  never  very  sparing  of  uncourtly  epithets;  that  where- 
as, in  discussing  the  general  principles  of  government,  they  seldom 
omit  an  opportunity  of  discrediting  and  deriding  the  privileged 
orders  of  society;  yet,  when  they  come  to  discuss  the  British 
Constitution,  nothing  can  be  more  respectful  than  their  language 
towards  the  Crown;  nothing  more  forbearing  than  their  treatment 
of  the  aristocracy.  With  the  House  of  Commons  alone  they  take 
the  freedom  of  familiarity;  upon  it  they  pour  out  all  the  phials  of 
their  wrath,  and  exhaust  their  denunciations  of  amendment. 

Gentlemen,  this,  though  extraordinary,  is  not  unintelligible. 
The  reformers  are  wise  in  their  generation.  They  know  well 
enough — and  have  read  plainly  enough  in  our  own  history,  that 
the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  and  the  privileges  of  the  peerage 
would  be  but  as  dust  in  the  balance  against  a  preponderating 
democracy.  They  mean  democracy,  and  nothing  else.  And,  give 
them  but  a  House  of  Commons  constructed  on  their  own  princi- 
ples— the  peerage  and  the  throne  may  exist  for  a  day,  but  may 
be  swept  from  the  face  of  the  earth  by  the  first  angry  vote  of  such 
a  House  of  Commons. 

It  is,  therefore,  utterly  unnecessary  for  the  reformers  to  declare 
hostility  to  the  Crown ;  it  is,  therefore,  utterly  superfluous  for 
them  to  make  war  against  the  peerage.  They  know  that,  let  but 
their  principles  have  full  play,  the  Crown  and  the  peerage  would 
be  to  the  Constitution  which  they  assail,  but  as  the  baggage  to  the 
army — and  the  destruction  of  them  but  as  the  gleanings  of  the 
battle.  They  know  that  the  battle  is  with  the  House  of  Commons, 
as  at  present  constituted;  and  that,  that  once  overthrown,  and 
another  popular  assembly  constructed  on  their  principle,  as  the 
creature  and  depository  of  the  people's  power,  and  the  unreason- 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  497 

ing  instrument  of  the  people's  will,  there  would  be  not  only  no 
chance,  but  (I  will  go  further  for  them  in  avowal,  though  not  in 
intention,  than  they  go  for  themselves)  there  would  not  be  a 
pretence  for  the  existence  of  any  other  branch  of  the  Constitution. 

Gentlemen,  the  whole  fallacy  lies  in  this:  the  reformers  reason 
from  false  premises,  and,  therefore,  are  driving  on  their  unhappy 
adherents  to  false  and  dangerous  conclusions.  The  Constitution 
of  this  country  is  a  monarchy,  controlled  by  two  assemblies;  the 
one  hereditary,  and  independent  alike  of  the  Crown  and  the 
people;  the  other  elected  by  and  for  the  people,  but  elected  for 
the  purpose  of  controlling  and  not  of  administering  the  Govern- 
ment. The  error  of  the  reformers,  if  error  it  can  be  called,  is, 
that  they  argue  as  if  the  Constitution  of  this  country  was  a  broad 
and  level  democracy,  inlaid  (for  ornament  sake)  with  a  peerage, 
and  topped  (by  sufferance)  with  a  Crown. 

If  they  say,  that,  for  such  a  Constitution,  that  is,  in  effect,  for 
an  uncontrolled  democracy,  the  present  House  of  Commons  is  not 
sufficiently  popular,  they  are  right;  but  such  a  Constitution  is  not 
what  we  have  or  what  we  desire.  We  are  born  under  a  monarchy, 
which  it  is  our  duty,  as  much  as  it  is  for  our  happiness,  to  pre- 
serve; and  which  there  cannot  be  a  shadow  of  doubt  that  the 
reforms  which  are  recommended  to  us  would  destroy. 

I  love  the  monarchy,  gentlemen,  because,  limited  and  control- 
led as  it  is  in  our  happy  Constitution,  I  believe  it  to  be  not  only 
the  safest  depository  of  power,  but  the  surest  guardian  of  liberty. 
I  love  the  system  of  popular  representation,  gentlemen; — who  can 
have  more  cause  to  value  it  highly  than  I  feel  at  this  moment — 
reflecting  on  the  triumphs  which  it  has  earned  for  me,  and  address- 
ing those  who  have  been  the  means  of  achieving  them  ?  But  of 
popular  representation,  I  think,  we  have  enough  for  every  pur- 
pose of  jealous,  steady,  corrective,  efficient  control  over  the  acts 
of  that  monarchical  power,  which,  for  the  safety  and  for  the  peace 
of  the  community,  is  lodged  in  one  sacred  family,  and  descendible 
from  sire  to  son. 

If  any  man  tell  me,  that  the  popular  principle  in  the  House  of 
Commons  is  not  strong  enough  for  effective  control,  nor  diffused 
enough  to  ensure  sympathy  with  the  people,  I  appeal  to  the  whole 
course  of  the  transactions  of  the  last  war;  I  desire  to  have  cited 
to  me  the  instances  in  which  the  House  of  Commons  has  failed, 
either  to  express  the  matured  and  settled  opinion  of  the  nation, 
or  to  convey  it  to  the  Crown.  But  I  warn  those  who  may  under- 
take to  make  the  citation,  that  they  do  not  (as,  in  fact,  they  almost 
always  do)  substitute  their  own  for  the  national  opinion,  and  then 
complain  of  its  having  been  imperfectly  echoed  in  the  House  of 
Commons. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  only  meant  to  say,  that  the  House  of 
65  ss* 


49S  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

Commons  is  not  the  whole  government  of  the  country — which, 
if  all  power  be  not  only  for  but  in  the  people,  the  House  ol 
Commons  ought  to  be,  if  the  people  were  adequately  represented 
— I  answer,  thank  God  it  is  not  so! — God  forbid  it  should  ever 
aim  at  becoming  so! 

But  they  look  far  short  of  the  ultimate  effect  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  present  day,  who  do  not  see  that  their  tendency  is  not  to 
make  a  House  of  Commons  such  as,  in  theory,  it  has  always  been 
defined — a  third  branch  of  the  legislature;  but  to  absorb  the  legis- 
lative and  executive  powers  into  one;  to  create  an  immediate 
delegation  of  the  whole  authority  of  the  people — to  which,  prac- 
tically, nothing  could,  and,  in  reasoning,  nothing  ought  to  stand 
in  opposition. 

Gentlemen,  it  would  be  well  if  these  doctrines  were  the  ebul- 
litions of  the  moment,  and  ended  with  the  occasions  which  natu- 
rally give  them  their  freest  play;  I  mean,  with  the  season  of 
popular  elections.  But,  unfortunately,  disseminated  as  they  are 
among  all  ranks  of  the  community,  they  are  doing  permanent  and 
incalculable  mischief.  How  lamentably  is  experience  lost  on 
mankind!  for  when — in  what  age,  in  what  country  of  the  world — 
have  doctrines  of  this  sort  been  reduced  to  practice,  without 
leading,  through  anarchy,  to  military  despotism!  The  revolution 
of  the  seasons  is  not  more  certain  than  is  this  connexion  of  events 
in  the  course  of  moral  nature. 

Gentlemen,  to  theories  like  these  you  will  do  me  the  justice  to 
remember  that  I  have  always  opposed  myself;  not  more  since  I 
have  had  the  honour  to  represent  this  community,  than  when  I 
was  uncertain  how  far  my  opinions  on  such  subjects  might  coin- 
cide with  yours. 

For  opposing  these  theories,  gentlemen,  I  have  become  an  object 
of  peculiar  obloquy;  but  I  have  borne  that  obloquy  with  the  con- 
sciousness of  having  discharged  my  duty;  and  with  the  consola- 
tion, that  the  time  was  not  far  distant  when  I  should  come  here 
among  you,  (to  whom  alone  I  owe  an  account  of  my  public  con- 
duct,)— when  I  should  have  an  opportunity  of  hearing  from  you, 
whether  I  had  (as  I  flattered  myself)  spoken  the  sense  of  the 
second  commercial  community  in  England;  and  when,  if — unfor- 
tunately and  contrary  to  my  belief — I  had  separated  myself  in 
opinion  from  you,  I  should  learn  the  grounds  of  that  separation. 

Gentlemen,  my  object,  in  political  life,  has  always  been,  rather 
to  reconcile  the  nation  to  the  lot  which  has  fallen  to  them  (surely 
a  most  glorious  and  blessed  lot  among  nations!)  than  to  aggravate 
incurable  imperfections,  and  to  point  out  imaginary  and  unattain- 
able excellencies  for  their  admiration.  I  have  done  so,  because, 
though  I  am  aware  that  more  splendidly  popular  systems  of  gov- 
ernment might  be  devised  than  that  which  it  is  our  happiness  to 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  499 

enjoy,  it  is,  I  believe  in  my  conscience,  impossible  to  devise  one 
in  which  all  the  good  qualities  of  human  nature  should  be  brought 
more  beneficially  into  action — in  which  there  should  be  as  much 
order  and  as  much  liberty — in  which  property  (the  conservative 
principle  of  society)  should  operate  so  fairly,  with  a  just  but  not 
overwhelming  weight — in  which  industry  should  be  so  sure  of  its 
reward,  talents  of  their  due  ascendancy,  and  virtue  of  the  general 
esteem. 

The  theories  of  preternatural  purity  are  founded  on  a  notion  of 
doing  away  with  all  these  accustomed  relations — of  breaking  all 
the  ties  by  which  society  is  held  together.  Property  is  to  have  no 
influence — talents  no  respect — virtue  no  honour,  among  their  neigh- 
bourhood. Naked,  abstract  political  rights  are  to  be  set  up  against 
the  authorities  of  nature  and  of  reason:  and  the  result  of  suffrages, 
thus  freed  from  all  the  ordinary  influences  which  have  operated 
upon  mankind  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  is  to  be — the 
erection  of  some  untried  system  of  politics,  of  which  it  may  be 
sufficient  to  say,  that  it  could  not  last  a  day — that,  if  it  rose  with 
the  mists  of  the  morning,  it  would  dissolve  in  the  noontide  sun. 

Gentlemen,  one  ill  consequence  of  these  brilliant  schemes,  even 
where  they  are  the  visions  of  unsound  imagination,  rather  than  the 
suggestions  of  crafty  mischief,  is,  that  they  tend  to  dissatisfy  the 
minds  of  the  uninformed  with  the  actual  Constitution  of  their 
country. 

To  maintain  that  Constitution  has  been  the  unvarying  object  of 
my  political  life:  and  the  maintenance  of  it,  in  these  latter  days, 
has,  as  I  have  said,  exposed  me  to  obloquy  and  to  hatred;  to  the 
hatred  of  those  who  believe  either  their  own  reputation  for  saga- 
city, or  their  own  means  of  success,  to  be  connected  with  a  change 
in  the  present  institutions  of  the  country. 

We  have  heard  something  of  numbers  in  the  course  of  the 
present  election:  and  there  is  in  numbers,  I  confess,  a  coincidence 
which  gratifies  and  pleases  me.  The  number  of  three  hundred 
was  that  of  the  majority  which  assured  my  return.  It  is  the  num- 
ber, I  am  informed,  of  those  who  are  assembled  here  to  greet  me 
this  day.  The  last  time  that  I  heard  of  the  number  three  hundred, 
in  a  way  at  all  interesting  to  myself,  was  in  an  intimation,  publicly 
conveyed  to  me,  that  precisely  that  number  of  heroes  had  bound 
themselves,  by  oath  to  each  other,  to  assassinate  me.  Gentlemen, 
against  my  three  hundred  assassins  I  put  my  three  hundred  friends, 
and  I  feel  neither  my  life  nor  my  popularity  in  danger. 

Mr.  Canning  concluded  by  expressing  his  acknowledgments 
for  the  honour  done  him  in  drinking  his  health,  and  by  proposing 
that  of  the  worthy  chairman. 


500 


SPEECH 

AT  THE  PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  LIVERPOOL,  GIVEN  IN  HONOUR  OF  MR. 
CANNING'S  RE-ELECTION,  IN  THE  MUSIC  HALL,  ON  SATURDAY, 
MARCH   18,  1820. 

Gentlemen, 

Short  as  the  interval  is  since  I  last  met  you  in  this  place  on  a 
similar  occasion,  the  events  which  have  filled  up  that  interval  have 
not  been  unimportant.  The  great  moral  disease  which  we  then 
talked  of  as  gaining  ground  on  the  community  has,  since  that  pe- 
riod, arrived  at  its  most  extravagant  height;  and,  since  that  period, 
also,  remedies  have  been  applied  to  it,  if  not  of  permanent  cure, 
at  least  of  temporary  mitigation. 

Gentlemen,  with  respect  to  those  remedies — I  mean  with  re- 
spect to  the  transactions  of  the  last  short  session  of  Parliament 
previous  to  the  dissolution — I  feel  that  it  is  my  duty,  as  your  re- 
presentative, to  render  to  you  some  account  of  the  part  which  I 
took  in  that  assembly  to  which  you  sent  me;  I  feel  it  my  duty 
also,  as  a  member  of  the  Government  by  which  those  measures 
were  advised.  Upon  occasions  of  such  trying  exigency  as  those 
which  we  have  lately  experienced,  I  hold  it  to  be  of  the  very  es- 
sence of  our  free  and  popular  Constitution,  that  an  unreserved  in- 
terchange of  sentiment  should  take  place  between  the  representa- 
tive and  his  constituents;  and  if  it  accidentally  happens,  that  he 
who  addresses  you  as  your  representative,  stands  also  in  the  situ- 
ation of  a  responsible  adviser  of  the  Crown,  I  recognize  in  that 
more  rare  occurrence  a  not  less  striking  or  less  valuable  peculiar- 
ity of  that  Constitution  under  which  we  have  the  happiness  to  live, 
— by  which  a  Minister  of  the  Crown  is  brought  into  contact  with 
the  great  body  of  the  community;  and  the  service  of  the  King 
is  shown  to  be  a  part  of  the  service  of  the  people. 

Gentlemen,  it  has  been  one  advantage  of  the  transactions  of  the 
last  session  of  Parliament,  that  while  they  were  addressed  to  meet 
the  evils  which  had  grown  out  of  charges  heaped  upon  the  House 
of  Commons,  they  have  also,  in  a  great  measure,  falsified  the 
charges  themselves. 

I  would  appeal  to  the  recollection  of  every  man  who  now  hears 
me, — of  any,  the  most  careless  estimator  of  public  sentiment,  or 
the  most  indifferent  spectator  of  public  events,  whether  any  coun- 
try, in  any  two  epochs,  however  distant,  of  its  history,  ever  pre- 
sented such  a  contrast  with  itself  as  this  country  in  November, 
1819,  and  this  country  in  February,  1820?     Do  I  exaggerate  when 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  501 

I  say,  that  there  was  not  a  man  of  property  who  did  not  tremble  for 
his  possessions? — that  there  was  not  a  man  of  retired  and  peaceable 
habits  who  did  not  tremble  for  the  tranquillity  and  security  of  his 
home? — that  there  was  not  a  man  of  orderly  and  religious  principles 
who  did  not  fear  that  those  principles  were  about  to  be  cut  from 
under  the  feet  of  succeeding  generations  ?  Was  there  any  man 
who  did  not  apprehend  the  Crown  to  be  in  danger?  Was  there 
any  man,  attached  to  the  other  branches  of  the  Constitution,  who 
did  not  contemplate  with  anxiety  and  dismay  the  rapid,  and,  ap- 
parently, irresistible  diffusion  of  doctrines  hostile  to  the  very  ex- 
istence of  Parliament  as  at  present  constituted,  and  calculated  to 
excite,  not  hatred  and  contempt  merely,  but  open  and  audacious 
force,  especially  against  the  House  of  Commons? — What  is,  in 
these  respects,  the  situation  of  the  country  now  ?  Is  there  a  man 
of  property  who  does  not  feel  the  tenure  by  which  he  holds  his 
possessions  to  have  been  strengthened  ?  Is  there  a  man  of  peace 
who  does  not  feel  his  domestic  tranquillity  to  have  been  secured? 
Is  there  a  man  of  moral  and  religious  principles  who  does  not  look 
forward  with  better  hope  to  see  his  children  educated  in  those 
principles? — who  does  not  hail,  with  renewed  confidence,  the  re- 
vival and  re-establishment  of  that  moral  and  religious  sense  which 
had  been  attempted  to  be  obliterated  from  the  hearts  of  mankind  ? 

Well,  gentlemen,  and  what  has  intervened  between  the  two 
periods?  A  calling  of  that  degraded  Parliament;  a  meeting  of 
that  scoffed-at  and  derided  House  of  Commons;  a  concurrence  of 
those  three  branches  of  an  imperfect  Constitution,  not  one  of 
which,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  radical  reformers,  lived  in  the 
hearts,  or  swayed  the  feelings,  or  commanded  the  respect  of  the 
nation;  but  which,  despised  as  they  were  while  in  a  state  of  sepa- 
ration and  inaction,  did,  by  a  co-operation  of  four  short  weeks,  re- 
store order,  confidence,  a  reverence  for  the  laws,  and  a  just  sense 
of  their  own  legitimate  authority. 

Another  event,  indeed,  has  intervened,  in  itself  of  a  most  pain- 
ful nature,  but  powerful  in  aiding  and  confirming  the  impressions 
which  the  assembling  and  the  proceedings  of  Parliament  were 
calculated  to  produce.  I  mean  the  loss  which  the  nation  has  sus- 
tained by  the  death  of  a  Sovereign,  with  whose  person  all  that  is 
venerable  in  monarchy  has  been  identified  in  the  eyes  of  success- 
ive generations  of  his  subjects;  a  Sovereign  whose  goodness, 
whose  years,  whose  sorrows  and  sufferings,  must  have  softened 
the  hearts  of  the  most  ferocious  enemies  of  kingly  power;  whose 
active  virtues,  and  the  memory  of  whose  virtues,  when  it  pleased 
Divine  Providence  that  they  should  be  active  no  more,  have  been 
the  guide  and  guardian  of  his  people  through  many  a  weary  and 
many  a  stormy  pilgrimage;  scarce  less  a  guide,  and  quite  as  much 


502  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

a  guardian,  in  the  cloud  of  his  evening  darkness,  as  in  the  bright- 
ness of  his  meridian  day. 

That  such  a  loss,  and  the  recollections  and  reflections  naturally 
arising  from  it,  must  have  had  a  tendency  to  revive  and  refresh, 
the  attachment  to  monarchy,  and  to  root  that  attachment  deeper 
in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  might  easily  be  shown  by  reasoning; 
but  a  feeling,  truer  than  all  reasoning,  anticipates  the  result,  and 
renders  the  process  of  argument  unnecessary.  So  far,  therefore, 
has  this  great  calamity  brought  with  it  its  own  compensation,  and 
conspired  to  the  restoration  of  peace  throughout  the  country  with 
the  measures  adopted  by  Parliament. 

And,  gentlemen,  what  was  the  character  of  those  measures  ? — 
The  best  eulogy  of  them  I  take  to  be  this:  it  may  be  said  of  them, 
as  has  been  said  of  some  of  the  most  consummate  productions  of 
literary  art,  that,  though  no  man  beforehand  had  exactly  antici- 
pated the  scope  and  the  details  of  them,  no  man,  when  they  were 
laid  before  him,  did  not  feel  that  they  were  precisely  such  as  he 
would  himself  have  suggested.  So  faithfully  adapted  to  the  case 
which  they  were  framed  to  meet,  so  correctly  adjusted  to  the  de- 
gree and  nature  of  the  mischief  they  were  intended  to  control, 
that,  while  we  all  feel  that  they  have  clone  their  work,  I  think 
none  will  say  there  has  been  any  thing  in  them  of  excess  or  su- 
pererogation. 

We  were  loudly  assured  by  the  reformers,  that  the  test,  through- 
out the  country,  by  which  those  who  were  ambitious  of  seats  in 
the  new  Parliament  would  be  tried,  was  to  be — whether  they  had 
supported  those  measures.  I  have  inquired,  with  as  much  dili- 
gence as  was  compatible  with  my  duties  here,  after  the  proceed- 
ings of  other  elections;  and,  I  protest  I  know  no  place  yet,  besides 
the  hustings  of  Westminster  and  Southwark,  at  which  that  men- 
aced test  has  been  put  to  any  candidates.  To  me,  indeed,  it  was 
not  put  as  a  test,  but  objected  as  a  charge.  You  know  how  that 
charge  was  answered:  and  the  result  is  to  me  a  majority  of  1,300 
out  of  2,000  voters  upon  the  poll. 

But,  gentlemen,  though  this  question  has  not,  as  was  threatened, 
been  the  watchword  of  popular  elections,  every  other  effort  has, 
nevertheless,  been  industriously  employed  to  persuade  the  people, 
that  their  liberties  have  been  essentially  abridged  by  the  regula- 
tion of  popular  meetings.  Against  that  one  of  the  measures  pass- 
ed by  Parliament,  it  is  that  the  attacks  of  the  radical  reformers 
have  been  particularly  directed.  Gentlemen,  the  first  answer  to 
this  averment  is,  that  the  act  leaves  untouched  all  the  constitu- 
tional modes  of  assembly  which  have  been  known  to  the  nation 
since  it  became  free.  We  are  fond  of  dating  our  freedom  from 
the  Revolution.  I  should  be  glad  to  know  in  what  period,  since 
the  Revolution  (up  to  a  very  late  period  indeed,  which  I   will 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  503 

specify) — in  what  period  of  those  reigns  growing  out  of  the 
Revolution — I  mean,  of  the  first  reigns  of  the  House  of  Bruns- 
wick— did  it  enter  into  the  head  of  man,  that  such  meetings  could 
be  holden,  or  that  the  legislature  would  tolerate  the  holding  of  such 
meetings,  as  disgraced  this  kingdom  for  some  months  previous  to 
the  last  session  of  Parliament?  When,  therefore,  it  is  asserted, 
that  such  meetings  were  never  before  suppressed,  the  simple  an- 
swer is — they  were  never  before  systematically  attempted  to  be 
holden. 

I  verily  believe,  the  first  meeting  of  the  kind  that  was  ever  at- 
tempted and  tolerated  (I  know  of  none  anterior  to  it)  was  that 
called  by  Lord  George  Gordon,  in  St.  George's  fields,  in  the  year 
1780,  which  led  to  the  demolition  of  chapels  and  dwelling-houses, 
the  breaking  of  prisons,  and  the  conflagration  of  London.  Was 
England  never  free  till  1780?  Did  British  liberty  spring  to  light 
from  the  ashes  of  the  metropolis?  What!  was  there  no  freedom 
in  the  reign  of  George  the  Second  ?  None  in  that  of  George  the 
First?  None  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne  or  of  King  William? 
Beyond  the  Revolution  I  will  not  go.  But  I  have  always  heard, 
that  British  liberty  was  established  long  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  late  reign;  nay,  that  in  the  late  reign  (according  to 
popular  politicians)  it  rather  sunk  and  retrograded:  and  yet  never 
till  that  reign  was  such  an  abuse  of  popular  meetings  dreamt  of, 
much  less  erected  into  a  right,  not  to  be  questioned  by  magis- 
trates, and  not  to  be  controlled  by  Parliament. 

Do  I  deny,  then,  the  general  right  of  the  people  to  meet,  to 
petition,  or  to  deliberate  upon  their  grievances?  God  forbid! 
But  social  right  is  not  a  simple,  abstract,  positive,  unqualified 
term.  Rights  are,  in  the  same  individual,  to  be  compared  with 
his  duties;  and  rights  in  one  person  are  to  be  balanced  with  the 
rights  of  others.  Let  us  take  this  right  of  meeting  in  its  most 
extended  construction  and  most  absolute  sense.  The  persons  who 
called  the  meeting  at  Manchester  tell  you,  that  they  had  a  right 
to  collect  together  countless  multitudes  to  discuss  the  question  of 
parliamentary  reform:  to  collect  them  when  they  would  and 
where  they  would,  without  consent  of  magistrates,  or  concurrence 
of  inhabitants,  or  reference  to  the  comfort  or  convenience  of  the 
neighbourhood.  May  not  the  peaceable,  the  industrious  inhabi- 
tant of  Manchester  say,  on  the  other  hand,  "  I  have  a  right  to 
quiet  in  my  house;  I  have  a  right  to  carry  on  my  manufactory, 
on  which  not  my  existence  only  and  that  of  my  children,  but  that 
of  my  workmen  and  their  numerous  families  depends.  I  have  a 
right  to  be  protected  in  the  exercise  of  this  my  lawful  calling;  I 
have  a  right  to  be  protected,  not  against  violence  and  plunder 
only,  against  fire  and  sword,  but  against  the  terror  of  these  calam- 
ities, and  against  the  risk  of  these  inflictions;  against  the  intimi- 


504  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

dation  or  seduction  of  my  workmen;  or  against  the  distraction  of 
that  attention  and  the  interruption  of  that  industry,  without  which 
neither  they  nor  I  can  gain  our  livelihood.  I  call  upon  the  laws 
to  afford  me  that  protection;  and,  if  the  laws  in  this  country  can- 
not afford  it,  depend  upon  it,  I  and  my  manufacturers  must  emi- 
grate to  some  country  where  they  can."  Here  is  a  conflict  of 
rights,  between  which  what  is  the  decision  ?  Which  of  the  two 
claims  is  to  give  way  ?  Can  any  reasonable  being  doubt?  Can 
any  honest  man  hesitate?  Let  private  justice  or  public  expedi- 
ency decide,  and  can  the  decision  by  possibility  be  other,  than 
that  the  peaceable  and  industrious  shall  be  protected — the  turbu- 
lent and  mischievous  put  down? 

But  what  similarity  is  there  between  tumults  such  as  these,  and 
an  orderly  meeting,  recognised  by  the  law  for  all  legitimate  pur- 
poses of  discussion  or  petition?  God  forbid,  that  there  should 
not  be  modes  of  assembly  by  which  every  class  of  this  great  na- 
tion may  be  brought  together  to  deliberate  on  any  matters  con- 
nected with  their  interest  and  their  freedom.  It  is,  however,  an 
inversion  of  the  natural  order  of  things,  it  is  a  disturbance  of  the 
settled  course  of  society,  to  represent  discussion  as  every  thing, 
and  the  ordinary  occupations  of  life  as  nothing.  To  protect  the 
peaceable  in  their  ordinary  occupations,  is  as  much  the  province 
of  the  laws,  as  to  provide  opportunities  of  discussion  for  every 
purpose  to  which  it  is  necessary  and  properly  applicable.  The 
laws  do  both;  but  it  is  no  part  of  the  contrivance  of  the  laws,  that 
immense  multitudes  should  wantonly  be  brought  together,  month 
after  month,  and  day  after  day,  in  places  where  the  very  bringing 
together  of  a  multitude  is  of  itself  the  source  of  terror  and  of 
danger. 

It  is  no  part  of  the  provision  of  the  laws,  nor  is  it  in  the  spirit 
of  them,  that  such  multitudes  should  be  brought  together  at  the 
will  of  unauthorized  and  irresponsible  individuals,  changing  the 
scene  of  meeting  as  may  suit  their  caprice  or  convenience,  and 
fixing  it  where  they  have  neither  property,  nor  domicil,  nor  con- 
nexion. The  spirit  of  the  law  goes  directly  the  other  way.  It 
is,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  eminently  a  spirit  of  corporation. 
Counties,  parishes,  townships,  guilds,  professions,  trades,  and  call- 
ings, form  so  many  local  and  political  subdivisions,  into  which 
the  people  of  England  are  distributed  by  the  law:  and  the  perva- 
ding principle  of  the  whole  is  that  of  vicinage  or  neighbourhood; 
by  which  each  man  is  held  to  act  under  the  view  of  his  neigh- 
bours; to  lend  his  aid  to  them,  to  borrow  theirs;  to  share  their 
councils,  their  duties,  and  their  burdens;  and  to  bear  with  them 
his  share  of  responsibility  for  the  acts  of  any  of  the  members  of 
the  community  of  which  he  forms  a  part. 

Observe,  I  am  not  speaking  here  of  the  reviled  and  discredited 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  505 

statute  law  only,  but  of  that  venerable  common  law  to  which  our 
reformers  are  so  fond  of  appealing  on  all  occasions,  against  the 
statute  law  by  which  it  is  modified,  explained,  or  enforced.  Guid- 
ed by  the  spirit  of  the  one,  no  less  than  by  the  letter  of  the  other, 
what  man  is  there  in  this  country  who  cannot  point  to  the  portion 
of  society  to  which  he  belongs?  If  injury  is  sustained,  upon 
whom  is  the  injured  person  expressly  entitled  to  come  for  redress? 
Upon  the  hundred,  or  the  division  in  which  he  has  sustained  the 
injury.  On  what  principle?  On  the  principle,  that  as  the  indi- 
vidual is  amenable  to  the  division  of  the  community  to  which  he 
specially  belongs,  so  neighbours  are  answerable  for  each  other. 
Just  laws,  to  be  sure,  and  admirable  equity,  if  a  stranger  is  to  col- 
lect a  mob  which  is  to  set  half  Manchester  on  fire;  and  the  burnt 
half  is  to  come  upon  the  other  half  for  indemnity,  while  the  stran- 
ger goes  off,  unquestioned,  to  excite  the  like  tumult  and  produce 
the  like  danger  elsewhere! 

That  such  was  the  nature,  such  the  tendency,  nay,  that  such,  in 
all  human  probability,  might  have  been  the  result,  of  meetings 
like  that  of  the  1 6th  of  August,  who  can  deny  ?  Who  that  weighs 
all  the  particulars  of  that  day,  comparing  them  with  the  rumours 
and  the  threats  that  preceded  it,  will  dispute  that  such  might  have 
been  the  result  of  that  very  meeting,  if  that  meeting,  so  very  le- 
gally assembled,  had  not,  by  the  happy  decision  of  the  magistrates, 
been  so  very  illegally  dispersed  ? 

It  is,  therefore,  not  in  consonance,  but  in  contradiction  to  the 
spirit  of  the  law,  that  such  meetings  have  been  holden.  The  law 
prescribes  a  corporate  character.  The  callers  of  these  meetings 
have  always  studiously  avoided  it.  No  summons  of  freeholders 
— none  of  freemen — none  of  the  inhabitants  of  particular  places 
or  parishes — no  acknowledgment  of  local  or  political  classifica- 
tion. Just  so  at  the  beginning  of  the  French  Revolution:  the 
first  work  of  the  reformers  was  to  loosen  every  established  politi- 
cal relation,  every  legal  holding  of  man  to  man;  to  destroy  every 
corporation,  to  dissolve  every  subsisting  class  of  society,  and  to 
reduce  the  nation  into  individuals,  in  order,  afterwards,  to  con- 
gregate them  into  mobs. 

Let  no  person,  therefore,  run  away  with  the  notion,  that  these 
things  were  clone  without  design.  To  bring  together  the  inhab- 
itants of  a  particular  division,  or  men  sharing  a  common  franchise, 
is  to  bring  together  an  assembly,  of  which  the  component  parts 
act  with  some  respect  and  awe  of  each  other.  Ancient  habits, 
which  the  reformers  would  call  prejudices;  preconceived  attach- 
ments, which  they  would  call  corruption;  that  mutual  respect 
which  makes  the  eye  of  a  neighbour  a  security  for  each  man's 
good  conduct,  but  which  the  reformers  would  stigmatize  as  a  con- 
federacy among  the  few  for  dominion  over  their  fellows; — all 
66  tt 


506  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

these  things  make  men  difficult  to  be  moved,  on  the  sudden,  to 
any  extravagant  and  violent  enterprize.  But  bring  together  a 
multitude  of  individuals,  having  no  permanent  relation  to  each 
other — no  common  tie,  but  what  arises  from  their  concurrence  as 
members  of  that  meeting,  a  tie  dissolved  as  soon  as  the  meeting 
is  at  an  end;  in  such  an  aggregation  of  individuals  there  is  no 
such  mutual  respect,  no  such  check  upon  the  proceedings  of  each 
man  from  the  awe  of  his  neighbour's  disapprobation;  and,  if  ever 
a  multitudinous  assembly  can  be  wrought  up  to  purposes  of  mis- 
chief, it  will  be  an  assembly  so  composed. 

How  monstrous  is  it  to  confound  such  meetings  with  the  genu- 
ine and  recognised  modes  of  collecting  the  sense  of  the  English 
people!  Was  it  by  meetings  such  as  these  that  the  Revolution 
was  brought  about,  that  grand  event,  to  which  our  antagonists  are 
so  fond  of  referring?  Was  it  by  meetings  in  St.  George's-fields? 
in  Spa-fields?  in  Smithfield  ?  Was  it  by  untold  multitudes  col- 
lected in  a  village  in  the  north?  No!  It  was  by  the  meeting  of 
corporations,  in  their  corporate  capacity; — by  the  assembly  of  re- 
cognised bodies  of  the  state;  by  the  interchange  of  opinions  among 
portions  of  the  community  known  to  each  other,  and  capable  of 
estimating  each  other's  views  and  characters.  Do  we  want  a  more 
striking  mode  of  remedying  grievances  than  this  ?  Do  we  require 
a  more  animating  example?  And  did  it  remain  for  the  reformers 
of  the  present  day  to  strike  out  the  course  by  which  alone  Great 
Britain  could  make  and  keep  herself  free? 

Gentlemen,  all  power  is,  or  ought  to  be,  accompanied  by  re- 
sponsibility. Tyranny  is  irresponsible  power.  This  definition 
is  equally  true,  whether  the  power  be  lodged  in  one  or  many; — 
whether  in  a  despot,  exempted  by  the  form  of  government  from 
the  control  of  the  law;  or  in  a  mob,  whose  numbers  put  them  be- 
yond the  reach  of  law.  Idle,  therefore,  and  absurd,  to  talk  of 
freedom  where  a  mob  domineers!  Idle,  therefore,  and  absurd,  to 
talk  of  liberty,  when  you  hold  your  property,  perhaps  your  life, 
not  indeed,  at  the  nod  of  a  despot,  but  at  the  will  of  an  inflamed, 
an  infuriated  populace!  If,  therefore,  during  the  reign  of  terror 
at  Manchester,  or  at  Spa-fields,  there  were  persons  in  this  country 
who  had  a  right  to  complain  of  tyranny,  it  was  they  who  loved 
the  Constitution,  who  loved  the  monarchy,  but  who  dared  not  ut- 
ter their  opinions  or  their  wishes  until  their  houses  were  barri- 
caded, and  their  children  sent  to  a  place  of  safety.  That  was  ty- 
ranny !  and,  so  far  as  the  mobs  were  under  the  control  of  a  leader, 
that  was  despotism!  It  was  against  that  tyranny,  it  was  against 
that  despotism,  that  Parliament  at  length  raised  its  arm. 

All  power,  I  say,  is  vicious  that  is  not  accompanied  by  propor- 
tionate responsibility.  Personal  responsibility  prevents  the  abuse 
of  individual  power:  responsibility  of  character  is  the  security 


ELECTION  AND  DINNEE   SPEECHES.  507 

against  the  abuse  of  collective  power,  when  exercised  by  bodies 
of  men  whose  existence  is  permanent  and  defined.  But  strip 
such  bodies  of  these  qualities,  you  degrade  them  into  multitudes, 
and  then  what  security  have  you  against  any  thing  that  they  may 
do  or  resolve,  knowing  that,  from  the  moment  at  which  the  meet- 
ing is  at  an  end,  there  is  no  human  being  responsible  for  their 
proceedings?  The  meeting  at  Manchester,  the  meeting  at  Bir- 
mingham, the  meeting  at  Spa-fields  or  Smithfield,  what  pledge 
could  they  give  to  the  nation  of  the  soundness  or  sincerity  of  their 
designs  ?  The  local  character  of  Manchester,  the  local  character 
of  Birmingham,  was  not  pledged  to  any  of  the  proceedings  to 
which  their  names  were  appended.  A  certain  number  of  ambu- 
latory tribunes  of  the  people,  self-elected  to  that  high  function, 
assumed  the  name  and  authority  of  whatever  place  they  thought 
proper  to  select  for  a  place  of  meeting;  their  rostrum  was  pitched, 
sometimes  here,  sometimes  there,  according  to  the  fancy  of  the 
mob,  or  the  patience  of  the  magistrates;  but  the  proposition  and 
the  proposer  were  in  all  places  nearly  alike;  and  when,  by  a  sort 
of  political  ventriloquism,  the  same  voice  had  been  made  to  issue 
from  half  a  dozen  different  corners  of  the  country,  it  was  impu- 
dently assumed  to  be  a  concord  of  sweet  sounds,  composing  the 
united  voice  of  the  people  of  England ! 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  estimate  the  mighty  mischief  that  has 
been  done  to  liberty  by  putting  down  meetings  such  as  I  have  de- 
scribed. Let  us  ask,  what  lawful  authority  has  been  curtailed; 
let  us  ask,  what  respectable  community  has  been  defrauded  of  its 
franchise;  let  us  ask,  what  municipal  institutions  have  been  vio- 
lated by  a  law  which  fixes  the  migratory  complaint  to  the  spot 
whence  it  professes  to  originate,  and  desires  to  hear  of  the  griev- 
ance from  those  by  whom  that  grievance  is  felt; — which  leaves  to 
Manchester,  as  Manchester,  to  Birmingham,  as  Birmingham,  to 
London,  as  London,  all  the  free  scope  of  utterance  which  they 
have  at  any  time  enjoyed  for  making  known  their  wants,  their  feel- 
ings, their  wishes,  their  remonstrances; — which  leaves  to  each  of 
these  divisions  its  separate  authority — to  the  union  of  all  or  of 
many  of  them  the  aggregate  authority  of  such  a  consent  and  co- 
operation; but  which  denies  to  any  itinerant  hawker  of  griev- 
ances the  power  of  stamping  their  names  upon  his  wares;  of  pre- 
tending, because  he  may  raise  an  outcry  at  Manchester  or  at  Bir- 
mingham, that  he  therefore  speaks  the  sense  of  the  town  which 
he  disquiets  and  endangers;  or,  still  more  preposterously,  that  be- 
cause he  has  disquieted  and  endangered  half  a  dozen  neighbour- 
hoods in  their  turn,  he  is,  therefore,  the  organ  of  them  all,  and, 
through  them,  of  the  whole  British  people. 

Such  are  the  stupid  fallacies  which  the  law  of  the  last  session 


508  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

has  extinguished!  and  such  are  the  object  and  effect  of  the  mea- 
sures which  British  liberty  is  not  to  survive! 

To  remedy  the  dreadful  wound  thus  inflicted  upon  British 
liberty, — to  restore  to  the  people  what  the  people  have  not  lost 
— to  give  a  new  impulse  to  that  spirit  of  freedom  which  nothing 
has  been  done  to  embarrass  or  restrain,  we  are  invited  to  alter  the 
constitution  of  that  assembly  through  which  the  people  share  in 
the  legislature;  in  short,  to  make  a  radical  reform  in  the  House 
of  Commons. 

It  has  always  struck  me  as  extraordinary,  that  there  should  be 
persons  prepared  to  entertain  the  question  of  a  change  in  so  im- 
portant a  member  of  the  Constitution,  without  considering  in  what 
way  that  change  must  affect  the  situation  of  the  other  members, 
and  the  action  of  the  Constitution  itself. 

I  have,  on  former  occasions,  stated  here,  and  I  have  stated  else- 
where, questions  on  this  subject,  to  which,  as  yet,  I  have  never 
received  an  answer.  "  You  who  propose  to  reform  the  House  of 
Commons,  do  you  mean  to  restore  that  branch  of  the  legislature 
to  the  same  state  in  which  it  stood  at  some  former  period?  or  do 
you  mean  to  re-construct  it  on  new  principles?" 

Perhaps  a  moderate  reformer  or  whig  will  answer,  that  he 
means  only  to  restore  the  House  of  Commons  to  what  it  was  at 
some  former  period.  I  then  beg  to  ask  him — and  to  that  ques- 
tion, also,  I  have  never  yet  received  an  answer — "  At  what  period 
of  our  history  was  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  state  to  which 
you  wish  to  restore  it?" 

The  House  of  Commons  must,  for  the  purpose  of  clear  argu- 
ment, be  considered  in  two  views.  First,  with  respect  to  its 
agency  as  a  third  part  in  the  Constitution:  secondly,  with  respect 
to  its  composition,  in  relation  to  its  constituents.  As  to  its  agency 
as  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  I  venture  to  say,  without  hazard,  as 
I  believe,  of  contradiction,  that  there  is  no  period  in  the  history 
of  this  country  in  which  the  House  of  Commons  will  be  found  to 
have  occupied  so  large  a  share  of  the  functions  of  Government  as 
at  present.  Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
this  one  point,  at  least,  is  indisputable,  that  from  the  earliest  in- 
fancy of  the  Constitution,  the  power  of  the  House  of  Commons 
has  been  growing,  till  it  has  almost,  like  the  rod  of  Aaron,  ab- 
sorbed its  fellows.  I  am  not  saying  whether  this  is  or  is  not  as  it 
ought  to  be.  I  am  merely  saying  why  I  think  that  it  cannot  be 
intended  to  complain  of  the  want  of  power,  and  of  a  due  share  in 
the  Government,  as  the  defect  of  the  modern  House  of  Commons. 

I  admit,  however,  very  willingly,  that  the  greater  share  of 
power  the  House  of  Commons  exercises,  the  more  jealous  we 
ought  to  be  of  its  composition;  and  I  presume,  therefore,  that  it 
is  in  this  respect,  and  in  relation  to  its  constituents,  that  the  state 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  509 

of  that  House  is  contended  to  want  revision.  Well,  then,  at  what 
period  of  our  history  was  the  composition  of  the  history  of  the 
House  of  Commons  materially  different  from  what  it  is  at  present? 
Is  there  any  period  of  our  history  in  which  the  rights  of  election 
were  not  as  various,  in  which  the  influence  of  property  was  not 
as  direct,  in  which  recommendations  of  candidates  were  not  as 
efficient,  and  some  boroughs  as  close  as  they  are  now  ?  I  ask  for 
information;  but  that  information,  plain  and  simple  as  it  is,  and 
necessary,  one  should  think,  to  a  clear  understanding,  much  more 
to  a  grave  decision  of  the  point  at  issue,  I  never,  though  soliciting 
it  with  all  humility,  have  ever  yet  been  able  to  obtain  from  any 
reformer,  radical  or  whig. 

The  radical  reformer,  indeed,  to  do  him  justice,  is  not  bound 
to  furnish  me  with  an  answer  to  this  question,  because  with  his 
view  of  the  matter,  precedents  (except  one,  which  I  shall  mention 
presently)  have  nothing  to  do.  The  radical  reformer  would,  pro- 
bably, give  to  my  first  question  an  answer  very  different  from 
that  which  I  have  supposed  his  moderate  brother  to  give.  He 
will  tell  me  fairly,  that  he  means  not  simply  to  bring  the  House  of 
Commons  back,  either  to  the  share  of  power  which  it  formerly 
enjoyed,  or  to  the  modes  of  election  by  which  it  was  formerly 
chosen;  but  to  make  it  what,  according  to  him,  it  ought  to  be — 
a  direct,  effectual  representative  of  the  people;  representing  them 
not  as  a  delegate  commissioned  to  take  care  of  their  interests,  but 
as  a  deputy  appointed  to  speak  their  will.  Now  to  this  view  of 
the  matter,  I  have  no  other  objection  than  this: — that  the  British 
Constitution  is  a  limited  monarchy;  that  a  limited  monarchy  is, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  a  mixed  government;  but  that  such  a 
House  of  Commons  as  the  radical  reformer  requires  would,  in 
effect,  constitute  a  pure  democracy;  a  power,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
inconsistent  with  any  monarchy,  and  unsesceptible  of  any  limit- 
ation. 

I  may  have  great  respect  for  the  person  who  theoretically  pre- 
fers a  republic  to  a  monarchy.  But,  even  supposing  me  to  agree 
with  him  in  his  preference,  I  should  have  a  preliminary  question 
to  discuss,  by  which  he,  perhaps,  may  not  feel  himself  embarras- 
sed; which  is  this,  whether  I,  born  as  I  am  (and  as  /  think  it  is 
my  good  fortune  to  be)  under  a  monarchy,  am  quite  at  liberty  to 
consider  myself  as  having  a  clear  stage  for  political  experiments; 
whether  I  should  be  authorized,  if  I  were  convinced  of  the  expe- 
ediency  of  such  a  change,  to  withdraw  monarchy  altogether  from 
the  British  Constitution,  and  to  substitute  an  unqualified  democra- 
cy in  its  stead:  or  whether,  whatever  changes  I  may  be  desirous 
of  introducing,  I  am  not  bound  to  consider  the  Constitution  which 
I  find  as  at  least  circumscribing  the  range,  and,  in  some  measure, 
prescribing  the  nature,  of  the  improvement. 

TT* 


510  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

For  my  own  part,  I  am,  undoubtedly,  prepared  to  uphold  the 
ancient  monarchy  of  the  country,  by  arguments  drawn  from  what 
I  think  the  blessings  which  we  have  enjoyed  under  it;  and  by 
arguments  of  another  sort,  if  arguments  of  another  sort  shall  ever 
be  brought  against  it.     But  all  that  I  am  now  contending  for  is, 
that  whatever  reformation  is  proposed,  should  be  considered  with 
some  reference  to  the  established  Constitution   of  the  country. 
That  point  being  conceded  to  me,  I  have  no  difficulty  in  saying, 
that  I  cannot  conceive  a  Constitution  of  which  one-third  part  shall 
be  an  assembly  delegated  by  the  people — not  to  consult  for  the 
good  of  the  nation,  but  to  speak,  day  by  day,  the  people's  will — 
which  must  not,  in  a  few  days'  sitting,  sweep  away  every  other 
branch  of  the  Constitution  that  might  attempt  to  oppose  or  con- 
trol it.  I  cannot  conceive  how,  in  fair  reasoning,  any  other  branch 
of  the  Constitution  should  pretend  to  stand  against  it.     If  Go- 
vernment be  a  matter  of  will,  all  that  we  have  to  do  is  to  collect 
the  will  of  the  nation,  and,  having  collected  it  by  an  adequate 
organ,  that  will  is  paramount  and  supreme.     By  what  pretension 
could  the  House  of  Lords  be  maintained  in  equal  authority  and 
jurisdiction  with  the  House  of  Commons,  when  once  that  House 
of  Commons  should  become  a  direct  deputation,  speaking  the  peo- 
ple's will,  and  that  will  the  rule  of  the  Government?  In  one  way 
or  other  the  House  of  Lords  must  act,  if  it  be  to  remain  a  concur- 
rent branch  of  the  legislature.     Either  it  must  uniformly  affirm 
the  measures  which  come  from  the  House  of  Commons,  or  it  must, 
occasionally,  take  the  liberty  to  reject  them.     If  it  uniformly  af- 
firm, it  is  without  the  shadow  of  authority.     But  to  presume  to 
reject  an  act  of  the  deputies  of  the  whole  nation! — by  what  as- 
sumption  of  right  could  three  or  four  hundred  great  proprietors 
set  themselves  against  the  national  will  ?     Grant  the  reformers, 
then,  what  they  ask,  on  the  principles  on  which  they  ask  it,  and 
it  is  utterly  impossible  that,  after  such  a  reform,  the  Constitution 
should  long  consist  of  more  than  one  body,  and  that  one  body  a 
popular  assembly. 

Why,  gentlemen,  is  this  theory?  or  is  it  a  theory  of  mine? 
If  there  be,  among  those  who  hear  me,  any  man  who  has  been 
(as  in  the  generous  enthusiasm  of  youth  any  man  may  blamelessly 
have  been)  bitten  by  the  doctrines  of  reform,  I  implore  him,  be- 
fore he  goes  forward  in  his  progress  to  embrace  those  doctrines 
in  their  radical  extent,  to  turn  to  the  history  of  the  transactions 
in  this  country  in  the  year  1648,  and  to  examine  the  bearings  of 
those  transactions  on  this  very  question  of  radical  reform.  He 
will  find,  gentlemen,  that  the  House  of  Commons  of  that  day 
passed  the  following  resolution: — 

"Resolved,  that  the  people  are,  under  God,  the  original  of  all  just  power." 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  511 

Well! — can  any  sentiment  be  more  just  and  reasonable?  Is  it 
not  the  foundation  of  all  the  liberties  of  mankind  ?  Be  it  so.  Let 
us  proceed.  The  House  of  Commons  followed  up  this  resolution 
by  a  second,  which  runs  in  something  like  these  terms: — 

"  Resolved,  that  the  Commons  of  England,  assembled  in  Parliament,  being 
chosen  by  and  representing  the  people,  have  the  supreme  authority  of  this  na- 
tion." 

In  this  resolution  the  leap  is  taken.  Do  the  radical  reformers 
deny  the  premises  or  the  inference  ?  or  do  they  adopt  the  whole 
of  the  tempting  precedent  before  them? 

But  the  inference  did  not  stop  there.  The  House  of  Commons 
proceeded  to  deduce,  from  these  propositions,  an  inference,  the 
apparently  logical  dependence  of  which  upon  these  propositions 
I  wish  I  could  see  logically  disproved. 

"  Resolved,  (without  one  dissenting  voice,)  That  whatsoever  is  enacted  and 
declared  law  by  the  Commons  of  England,  assembled  in  Parliament,  hath  the 
force  of  law,  and  all  the  people  of  this  nation  are  included  thereby,  although 
the  consent  and  concurrence  of  the  King  and  House  of  Peers  be  not  had 
thereunto.'''''1 

Such  was  the  theory:  the  practical  inferences  were  not  tardy 
in  their  arrival,  after  the  theory.  In  a  few  weeks  the  House  of 
Peers*  was  voted  useless.  We  all  know  what  became  of  the 
Crown. 

Such,  I  say,  were  the  radical  doctrines  of  1648,  and  such  the 
consequences  to  which  they  naturally  led.  If  we  are  induced  to 
admit  the  same  premises  now,  who  is  it,  I  should  be  glad  to  know, 
that  is  to  guarantee  us  against  similar  conclusions? 

These,  then,  are  the  reasons  why  I  look  with  jealousy  at  schemes 
of  parliamentary  reform.  I  look  at  them  with  still  more  jealousy, 
because,  in  one  of  the  two  classes  of  men  who  co-operate  in  sup- 
port of  that  question,  I  never  yet  found  any  two  individuals  who 
held  the  same  doctrines:  I  never  yet  heard  any  intelligible  theory 
of  reform,  except  that  of  the  radical  reformers.  Theirs,  indeed,  it  is 
easy  enough  to  understand.  But  as  for  theirs,  I  certainly  am  not 
yet  fully  prepared.  I,  for  my  part,  will  not  consent  to  take 
one  step,  without  knowing  on  what  principle  I  am  invited  to  take 
it,  and  (which  is,  perhaps,  of  more  consequence,)  without  declaring 
on  what  principle,  I  will  not  consent  that  any  step,  however 
harmless,  shall  be  taken. 

What  more  harmless  than  to  disfranchise  a  corrupt  borough  in 
Cornwall,  which  has  exercised  its  franchise  amiss,  and  brought 
shame  on  itself,  and  on  the  system  of  which  it  is  a  part? — Noth- 

*  "  The  same  day  (January  30,  1048-9)  the  Lords  desired  a  conference  with 
the  Commons  about  settling  the  Government,  and  the  administration  of  justice, 
the  judges'  commissions  being  determined  by  the  death  of  the  King.  The 
Commons,  without  answering  the  messenger,  voted  the  Lords  to  be  useless  and 
dangerous,  and  therefore  to  be  abolished." — Rapin,fo.  vol.  ii.  p.  574. 


512  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

ing.  I  have  no  sort  of  objection  to  doing,  as  Parliament  has  often 
done  in  such  cases,  (supposing  always  the  case  to  be  proved,) — 
to  disfranchising  the  borough,  and  rendering  it  incapable  of  abu- 
sing its  franchise  in  future.  But  though  I  have  no  objection  to 
doing  this,  I  will  not  do  it  on  the  principle  of  speculative  im- 
provement. I  do  it  on  the  principle  of  specific  punishment  for 
an  offence.  And  I  will  take  good  care,  that  no  inference  shall  be 
drawn  from  my  consent  in  this  specific  case,  as  to  any  sweeping 
concurrence  in  a  scheme  of  general  alteration. 

Nay,  I  should  think  it  highly  disingenuous  to  suffer  the  radical 
reformers  to  imagine  that  they  had  gained  a  single  step  towards 
the  admission  of  their  theory,  by  any  such  instance  of  particular 
animadversion  on  proved  misconduct.  I  consent  to  such  disfran- 
chisement; but  I  do  so,  not  with  a  view  of  furthering  the  radical 
system — rather  of  thwarting  it.  I  am  willing  to  wipe  out  any 
blot  in  the  present  system,  because  I  mean  the  present  system  to 
stand.  I  will  take  away  a  franchise,  because  it  has  been  practi- 
cally abused;  not  because  I  am  at  all  disposed  to  inquire  into  the 
origin  or  to  discuss  the  utility  of  all  such  franchises,  any  more 
than  I  mean  to  inquire,  gentlemen,  into  your  titles  to  your  estates. 
Disfranchising  Grampound,  (if  that  is  to  be  so,)  I  mean  to  save 
Old  Sarum. 

Now,  Sir,  I  think  I  deal  fairly  with  the  radical  reformers;  more 
fairly  than  those  who  would  suffer  it  to  be  supposed  by  them, 
that  the  disfranchisement  of  Grampound  is  to  be  the  beginning  of 
a  system  of  reform:  while  they  know,  and  I  hope  mean  as  well 
as  I  do,  not  to  reform  (in  the  sense  of  change)  but  to  preserve 
the  Constitution.  I  would  not  delude  the  reformers,  if  I  could; 
and  it  is  quite  useless  to  attempt  a  delusion  upon  persons  quite  as 
sagacious  in  their  generation  as  any  moderate  reformers  or  anti- 
reformers  of  us  all.  They  know  full  well,  that  the  whigs  have 
no  more  notion  than  I  have  of  parting  with  the  close  boroughs. 
Not  they,  indeed !  A  large,  and  perhaps  the  larger,  part  of  them 
are  in  their  hands.  Why,  in  the  assembly  to  which  you  send  me, 
gentlemen,  some  of  those  who  sit  on  the  same  side  with  me  re- 
present, to  be  sure,  less  popular  places,  than  Liverpool — but  on 
the  bench  immediately  over  against  me,  I  descry,  amongst  the 
most  eminent  of  our  rivals  for  power,  scarce  any  other  sort  of 
representatives  than  members  for  close,  or  if  you  will,  for  rotten 
boroughs.  To  suppose,  therefore,  that  our  political  opponents  have 
any  thoughts  of  getting  rid  of  the  close  boroughs,  would  be  a 
gross  delusion;  and,  I  have  no  doubt,  they  will  be  quite  as  fair 
and  open  with  the  reformers  on  this  point  as  I  am. 

And  why,  gentlemen,  is  it  that  I  am  satisfied  with  a  system 
which,  it  is  said,  no  man  can  support  who  is  not  in  love  with  cor- 
ruption?    Is  it  that  I,  more  than  any  other  man,  am  afraid  to  face 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  513 

a  popular  election  ?  To  the  last  question  you  can  give  the  an- 
swer. To  the  former,  I  will  answer  for  myself.  I  do  verily  be- 
lieve, as  I  have  already  said,  that  a  complete  and  perfect  demo- 
cratical  representation,  such  as  the  reformers  aim  at,  cannot  exist 
as  part  of  a  mixed  government.  It  may  exist,  and  for  aught  I 
know  or  care,  may  exist  beneficially  as  a  whole.  But  I  am  not 
sent  to  Parliament  to  inquire  into  the  question,  whether  a  demo- 
cracy or  a  monarchy  be  the  best.  My  lot  is  cast  under  the  British 
monarchy.  Under  that  I  have  lived — under  that  I  have  seen  my 
country  flourish — under  that  I  have  seen  it  enjoy  as  great  a  share 
of  prosperity,  of  happiness,  and  of  glory  as  I  believe  any  modifi- 
cation of  human  society  to  be  capable  of  bestowing;  and  I  am  not 
prepared  to  sacrifice  or  to  hazard  the  fruit  of  centuries  of  experi- 
ence, of  centuries  of  struggles,  and  of  more  than  one  century  of 
liberty,  as  perfect  as  ever  blessed  any  country  upon  the  earth,  for 
visionary  schemes  of  ideal  perfectibility,  or  for  doubtful  experi- 
ments even  of  possible  improvement. 

I  am,  therefore,  for  the  House  of  Commons  as  a  part,  and  not 
as  the  whole,  of  the  Government.  And  as  a  part  of  the  Govern- 
ment, I  hold  it  to  be  frantic  to  suppose,  that  from  the  election  of 
members  of  Parliament  you  can  altogether  exclude,  by  any  con- 
trivance, even  if  it  were  desirable  to  do  so,  the  influence  of  pro- 
perty, rank,  talents,  family  connexion,  and  whatever  else,  in  the 
radical  language  of  the  day,  is  considered  as  intimidation  or  cor- 
ruption. I  believe  that  if  a  reform,  to  the  extent  of  that  demanded 
by  the  radical  reformers,  were  granted,  you  would,  before  an 
annual  election  came  round,  find  that  there  were  new  connexions 
grown  up  which  you  must  again  destroy,  new  influence  acquired 
which  you  must  dispossess  of  its  authority;  and  that  in  these 
fruitless  attempts  at  unattainable  purity,  you  were  working  against 
the  natural  current  of  human  nature. 

I  believe,  therefore,  that,  contrive  how  you  will,  some  such 
human  motives  of  action  will  find  room  to  operate  in  the  election 
of  members  of  Parliament.  I  think  that  this  must  and  ought  to 
be  so,  unless  you  mean  to  exclude  from  the  concerns  of  the  nation 
all  inert  wealth,  all  inactive  talent,  the  retired,  the  aged,  and  the 
infirm,  all  who  cannot  face  popular  assemblies  or  engage  in  busy 
life;  in  short,  unless  you  have  found  some  expedient  for  disarm- 
ing property  of  influence,  without  (what  I  hope  we  are  not  yet 
ripe  for)  the  abolition  of  property  itself. 

I  would  have  by  choice — if  the  choice  were  yet  to  be  made — 
I  would  have  in  the  House  of  Commons  great  variety  of  interests, 
and  I  would  have  them  find  their  way  there  by  a  great  variety  of 
rights  of  election;  satisfied  that  uniformity  of  election  would  pro- 
duce any  thing  but  a  just  representation  of  various  interests.  As 
to  the  close  boroughs,  I  know  that  through  them  have  found  their 
6" 


514  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

way  into  the  House  of  Commons,  men  whose  talents  have  been 
an  honour  to  their  kind,  and  whose  names  are  interwoven  with 
the  brightest  periods  in  the  history  of  their  country.  I  cannot 
think  that  system  altogether  vicious  which  has  produced  such 
fruits.  Nor  can  I  think  that  there  should  be  but  one  road  into 
that  assembly,  or  that  no  man  should  be  presumed  fit  for  the  de- 
liberations of  a  senate,  who  has  not  had  the  nerves  previously  to 
face  the  storms  of  the  hustings. 

I  need  not  say,  Gentlemen,  that  I  am  one  of  the  last  men  to 
disparage  the  utility  and  dignity  of  popular  elections.  I  have  good 
cause  to  speak  of  them  in  far  different  language.  But,  among  num- 
berless other  considerations  which  endear  to  me  the  favours  which 
I  have  received  at  your  hands,  I  confess  it  is  one,  that,  as  your 
representative,  I  am  enabled  to  speak  my  genuine  sentiments  on 
this  (as  I  think  it)  vital  question  of  parliamentary  reform,  without 
the  imputation  of  shrinking  from  popular  canvass,  or  of  seeking 
shelter  for  myself  in  that  species  of  representation  which,  as  an 
element  in  the  composition  of  Parliament,  I  never  shall  cease  to 
defend. 

In  truth,  Gentlemen,  though  the  question  of  reform  is  made  the 
pretext  of  those  persons  who  have  vexed  the  country  for  some 
months,  I  verily  believe,  that  there  are  very  few  even  of  them 
who  either  give  credit  to  their  own  exaggerations,  or  care  much 
about  the  improvements  which  they  recommend.  Why,  do  we 
not  see  that  the  most  violent  of  the  reformers  of  the  day  are  aim- 
ing at  seats  in  that  assembly,  which,  according  to  their  own  theo- 
ries, they  should  have  left  to  wallow  in  its  own  pollution,  dis- 
countenanced and  unredeemed  ?  It  is  true,  that  if  they  found 
their  way  there,  they  might  endeavour  to  bring  us  to  a  sense  of 
our  misdeeds,  and  to  urge  us  to  redeem  our  character  by  some 
self-condemning  ordinance;  but  would  not  the  authority  of  their 
names,  as  our  associates,  have  more  than  counterbalanced  the  force 
of  their  eloquence  as  our  reformers  ? 

But,  Gentlemen,  I  am  for  the  whole  Constitution.  The  liberty 
of  the  subject  as  much  depends  on  the  maintenance  of  the  consti- 
tutional prerogatives  of  the  Crown — on  the  acknowledgment  of 
the  legitimate  power  of  the  other  House  of  Parliament,  as  it  does 
in  upholding  that  supreme  power  (for  such  is  the  power  of  the 
purse,  in  one  sense  of  the  word,  though  not  in  the  sense  of  the 
resolution  of  1648)  which  resides  in  the  democratical  branch  of 
the  Constitution.  Whatever  beyond  its  just  proportion  was  gained 
by  one  part,  would  be  gained  at  the  expense  of  the  whole;  and 
the  balance  is  now,  perhaps,  as  nearly  poised  as  human  wisdom 
can  adjust  it.  I  fear  to  touch  that  balance,  the  disturbance  of 
which  must  bring  confusion  on  the  nation. 

Gentlemen,  I  trust  there  are  few,  very  few,  reasonable  and  en- 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  515 

lightened  men  ready  to  lend  themselves  to  projects  of  confusion. 
But  I  confess  I  very  much  wish,  that  all  who  are  not  ready  to  do  so 
would  consider  the  ill  effect  of  any  countenance  given,  publicly 
or  by  apparent  implication,  to  those  whom,  in  their  hearts  and 
judgments,  they  despise.  I  remember  that  most  excellent  and 
able  man,  Mr.  Wilberforce,  once  saying,  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, that  he  "  never  believed  an  opposition  really  to  wish  mis- 
chief to  the  country;  that  they  only  wished  just  so  much  mischief 
as  might  drive  their  opponents  out,  and  place  themselves  in  their 
room."  Now,  Gentlemen,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  there  are 
some  persons  tampering  with  the  question  of  reform  something  in 
the  same  spirit.  They  do  not  go  so  far  as  the  reformers;  they 
even  state  irreconcilabe  differences  of  opinion;  but  to  a  certain 
extent  they  agree,  and  even  co-operate  with  them.  They  co-ope- 
rate with  them  in  inflaming  the  public  feeling  not  only  against  the 
Government,  but  against  the  support  given  by  Parliament  to  that 
Government,  in  the  hope,  no  doubt,  of  attracting  to  themselves 
the  popularity  which  is  lost  to  their  opponents,  and  thus  being 
enabled  to  correct  and  retrieve  the  errors  of  a  displaced  adminis- 
tration. Vain  and  hopeless  task  to  raise  such  a  spirit  and  then  to 
govern  it.  They  may  stimulate  the  steeds  into  fury,  till  the 
chariot  is  hurried  to  the  brink  of  a  precipice;  but  do  they  flatter 
themselves  that  they  can  then  leap  in,  and,  hurling  the  incompe- 
tent driver  from  his  seat,  check  the  reins  just  in  time  to  turn  from 
the  precipice  and  avoid  the  fall? — I  fear  they  would  attempt  it  in 
vain.  The  impulse,  once  given,  may  be  too  impetuous  to  be 
controlled;  and,  intending  only  to  change  the  guidance  of  the 
machine,  they  may  hurry  it  and  themselves  to  irretrievable  de- 
struction. 

May  every  man  who  has  a  stake  in  the  country,  whether  from 
situation,  from  character,  from  wealth,  from  his  family,  and  from 
the  hopes  of  his  children — may  every  man  who  has  a  sense  of  the 
blessings  for  which  he  is  indebted  to  the  form  of  Government 
under  which  he  lives,  see  that  the  time  is  come,  at  which  his  de- 
cision must  be  taken,  and,  when  once  taken,  steadfastly  acted  upon 
— for  or  against  the  institutions  of  the  British  monarchy!  The 
time  is  come  at  which  there  is  but  that  line  of  demarcation.  On 
which  side  of  that  line  we,  Gentlemen,  shall  range  ourselves,  our 
choice  has  long  ago  been  made.  In  acting  upon  that  our  common 
choice,  with  my  best  efforts  and  exertions,  I  shall  at  once  faith- 
fully represent  your  sentiments  and  satisfy  my  own  judgment 
and  conscience. 


516 


SPEECH 

at  the  public  dinner  at  liverpool,  in  the  lyceum  room, 
on  friday,  the  30th  op  august,  1822. 

Gentlemen, 

Often  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  express  my  thanks  to  my 
constituents,  I  never  rose  under  feelings  so  oppressive  as  those 
which  I  experience  at  the  present  moment.  It  is  not  that  the 
manifestation  of  your  kindness  is  new  or  strange,  for  it  began 
with  your  first  unsolicited  selection  of  me,  and  has  grown  with  the 
growth  of  our  acquaintance;  but  the  more  than  usual — the  crown- 
ing kindness  of  this  moment,  when  I  come  among  you  to  return 
thanks  for  the  past,  and  to  terminate  our  connexion  for  the  future, 
is  really  overcoming,  and  almost  takes  from  me  the  faculty  of 
expressing  the  excess  of  acknowledgment  which  it  inspires. 

Gentlemen,  let  those  who  doubt  the  practical  excellence  of  the 
political  institutions  of  Great  Britain  look  at  the  scene  which  this 
assembly  exhibits;  and  when  they  see  how  far  an  humble  indi- 
vidual, without  personal  distinction  or  personal  claims  of  any  kind 
on  the  consideration  or  good-will  of  a  great  community,  can  earn 
their  good  opinion,  and,  I  may  venture  to  say,  their  affection, 
simply  by  the  performance  of  his  public  duty  as  their  representa- 
tive, let  them  consider  what  gurantees  there  must  be  for  the 
security  of  a  country  in  which  such  connexions  are  formed,  and 
for  a  Constitution  under  which  such  a  public  interchange  of  re- 
ciprocal esteem  and  reciprocal  obligations  is  maintained.  Never 
can  such  a  country  sink  under  the  vainly  apprehended  danger  of 
of  despotism;  never,  I  trust  can  such  a  Constitution  be  made  the 
victim  of  that  opposite  and  equally  formidable  danger — of  anar- 
chy, which  would  involve  not  only  the  ruin  of  all  that  is  venera- 
ble in  our  establishments,  but  the  extinction  of  all  that  is  estimable 
in  social  life. 

Gentlemen,  there  are,  indeed,  other  roads  to  popularity.  Power 
may,  perhaps,  be  gained,  and  its  continued  tenure  secured,  by  a 
subserviency  without  limit  or  heistation:  and  there  is  a  cheap,  but 
dazzling,  popularity  for  those  who  will  either  invent  a  catalogue 
of  imaginary  evils,  or,  attributing  to  man  the  acts  of  Providence, 
will  promise  instant  relief  to  sufferings  arising  out  of  inevitable  ne- 
cessity, and  to  calamities  which  endurance  only  can  cure;  who  will 
challenge  all  existing  institutions  as  misgovernment,  and  mount 
and  ride  in  the  whirlwind  of  reform.  But,  gentlemen,  neither  of 
these  courses  have  I  ever  thought  it  consistent  with  honour  or  with 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  517 

duty  to  pursue.     He  may,  perhaps,  he  held  a  timid  and  unwise 
politician,  who  will  not  unscrupulously  lend  himself  to  objects 
which  he  cannot  approve  ;  and  he  may  be  sometimes  an  unpopu- 
lar representative,  who  does  not  lay  the  foundation  of  his  popu- 
larity in  flattery  of  the  passions  of  the  people.    For  the  people  are 
open  to  flattery  as  well  as  kings;  and  that  language  is  not  more 
remote  from  truth  which  exalts  prerogative  beyond  the  bounds  of 
reason,  than  that  which  speaks  incessantly  of  popular  rights,  with- 
out reference  to  corresponding  duties.     But,  gentlemen,  no  such 
sacrifices  of  truth  have  been  necessary  to  obtain  and  retain  your 
good-will.     I  have  found  in  this  enlightened  community, — com- 
prehending, as  it  necessarily  does,  conflicting  opinions,  as  well 
as,  in  a  certain  degree,  conflicting  interests — I  have  found  a  sin- 
gular temperance  in  your  differences  of  political  opinion.    I  have 
found  generally  prevalent  among  you  a  warm  but  reasoning  loy- 
alty, consistent  with  perfect  independence  of  thought;  and  an 
ardent  love  of  liberty,  combined  with  a  determined  hostility  to 
all  the  excesses  of  faction.    It  is  in  sympathizing  with  these  your 
feelings,  and  participating  in  these  your  sentiments,  that  I  have 
acquired  the  share  which  I  have  the  happiness  to  hold  in  your 
good  opinion:  though  sure  I  am,  that,  with  all  my  endeavours  to 
earn  it,  I  cannot  have  succeeded  in  deserving  that  excess  of  it 
which  you  have  been  pleased  to  manifest  to  me  on  this  occasion. 
Gentlemen,  on  former  occasions,  when  I  have  had  the  honour 
to  address  meetings  like  the  present,  the  task  has  been  much  more 
easy.     The  topics  on  which  I  then  had  to  dilate  belonged  to  the 
feelings  of  the  moment.    We  have,  on  those  occasions,  had  great 
struggles  to  animate  us,  we  have  had  great  victories  to  celebrate; 
and  we  all  know,  that,  in  the  celebration  of  these  municipal  vic- 
tories, some  exaggeration  of  triumph  is  not  only  permitted,  but 
is  freely  and  frankly  allowed  by  one  party  to  the  other.     But  on 
the  present  occasion,  warmly  as  I  feel   all  that  my  immediate 
friends  and  supporters  have  done  for  me  and  expressed  towards 
me,  I  stand  peculiarly  circumstanced ;  a  peculiarity  glorious,  I 
think,  to  the  town  as  well  as  to  myself ; — I  stand  in  the  peculiar 
circumstance  of  not  knowing  that  I  have  among  you,  at  this  mo- 
ment, even  a  political  enemy.    I  have,  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of 
this  day — pardon  the  boast,  for  the  cause  of  it  lies,  as  it  well  may, 
very  near  to  my  breast — I  have  received  this  morning,  from  the 
associated  commercial  bodies  of  the  town,  an  address,  acknow- 
ledging, in  terms  far  beyond  the  merit  of  any  services  which  I 
have   laboured    to   perform,  my  conduct  as   representative   from 
Liverpool.     Among  the  signatures  to  that  address,  representing, 
as  those  signatures  do,  all  the  various  classes  into  which  this  ex- 
tensive commercial  community  is  divided — among  these  signa- 
tures, I  say,  every  second  name  is  the  name  of  some  individual 

uu 


518  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

who  has  taken  an  active  part  against  me  in  some,  if  not  in  every 
election.  That  I  have  deserved  this  unexampled  concurrence  of 
approbation,  I  do  not  pretend;  that  I  have  received  it,  will  be,  to 
the  latest  hour  of  my  life,  a  pride  beyond  what  I  should  be  war- 
ranted in  expressing  here;  and  a  pride,  gentlemen,  which  I  shall 
transmit  to  my  children. 

Such  a  testimony  as  this  disables  me  from  referring,  with  any 
thing  like  an  adverse  feeling,  to  those  whose  political  opinions  we 
have  combated,  heretofore,  with  licensed  animosity — an  animosity, 
however,  which  never  survived  the  contest  which  gave  birth  to  it. 
While  I  maintain,  unshaken,  my  own  political  opinions,  and  while 
I  feel  myself  called  upon  to  render  to  you,  this  day,  an  account 
of  those  opinions,  I  beg  to  be  understood  as  saying  nothing  in  hos- 
tility to  any  man  who  may  differ  from  me,  or  who  may  have  op- 
posed me. 

Gentlemen,  it  so  happens  that  I  can  render  this  account  with 
the  greater  impartiality,  because,  in  addition  to  those  general  sub- 
jects upon  which,  retrospectively,  wre  are  all  now  tolerably  well 
agreed — to  the  war  in  which  the  country  wras  engaged  when  I 
first  came  amongst  you,  and  of  which,  while  the  success  was 
doubtful,  the  policy  was  naturally  enough  disputed,  but  with  re- 
spect to  which  all  memory  of  difference  has  been  since  nearly  ex- 
tinguished in  acclamations  at  its  final  triumph;  in  addition,  I  say, 
to  that  great  question,  and  to  the  questions  which  grew  out  of  it, 
there  were,  when  I  came  amongst  you,  and  there  are  still,  two 
great  national  questions,  upon  one  of  which  I  have  the  misfortune 
to  differ  from  the  great  body  of  my  most  respectable  friends  and 
supporters  in  this  town,  almost  as  widely  as,  on  the  other,  I  differ 
with  their  adversaries:  I  allude,  gentlemen,  to  the  Catholic  ques- 
tion as  the  first,  and  to  the  question  of  parliamentary  reform  as 
the  second,  of  those  national  questions. 

Gentlemen,  on  the  first  of  these  questions,  you  are  well  aware 
of  my  opinions;  for,  on  one  of  the  earliest  occasions  on  which  I 
had  the  honour  to  address  the  inhabitants  of  Liverpool,  I  told 
them  fairly,  that,  in  accepting  my  services,  they  accepted  the  ser- 
vices of  one  who,  on  that  question,  had  taken  his  part;  and  who 
could  not,  in  deference  to  their  opinions  or  prejudices,  call  them 
which  you  will,  abate  a  jot  of  his  anxiety  for  its  success.  Accord- 
ingly, gentlemen,  at  the  different  periods  and  under  the  various 
modifications  under  which  that  question  has  come  to  be  discussed, 
I  have  given  it  my  most  strenuous  support.  But  I  have,  in  all 
such  cases,  dealt  honestly  by  you,  gentlemen;  for  I  have  rarely, 
if  ever,  given  my  support  to  that  measure  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, without  openly  acknowledging,  that,  in  so  doing,  I  spoke 
against  what  I  believed  to  be  the  prevailing  sense  of  my  constitu- 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  519 

ents.    I  have  not,  therefore,  misused  the  weight  of  your  authority, 
nor  compromised  any  opinion  of  yours  adverse  to  my  own. 

Gentlemen,  if  I  were  remaining  in  this  country,  and  continuing 
to  take  my  part  in  Parliament,  I  should  continue  to  walk  in  the 
same  direction;  but  I  think  (and,  as  I  may  not  elsewhere  have 
an  opportunity  of  expressing  this  opinion,  I  am  desirous  of  ex- 
pressing it  here) — I  think  that,  after  the  experience  of  a  fruitless 
struggle  of  more  than  ten  years,  I  should,  as  an  individual  (speak- 
ing for  none  but  myself,  and  not  knowing  whether  I  carry  any 
other  person's  opinion  with  me,)  be  induced,  from  henceforth,  or, 
perhaps,  after  one  more  general  trial,  to  seek  upon  that  question 
a  liberal  compromise,  rather  than  persevere  in  fighting,  perhaps 
ten  years  more,  in  vain  for  unqualified  concession. 

I  might  have  had  some  hesitation,  under  other  circumstances, 
in  making  this  avowal,  knowing  that  it  is  generally  an  easier,  as 
well  as  a  prouder,  course  to  persevere,  even  in  what  is  hopeless, 
than  fairly  to  avow  a  disposition  to  compromise.  But,  in  what  I 
say  on  this  occasion,  I  can  have  no  other  object  than  to  declare  a 
sincere  opinion.  I  alluded,  in  recent  debates,  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  to  the  policy  of  accepting  partial  concessions,  and  to 
my  regret  that  I  had  once  been  myself  a  party  to  the  refusal  of 
them.  I  have  since  revolved  the  subject  much  in  my  mind:  and 
I  confess,  that,  next  to  the  immediate  success  of  the  whole  mea- 
sure, which  I  have  as  much  as  ever  at  heart,  I  should  wish,  as  well 
for  the  benefit  of  those  most  immediately  concerned,  as  for  the 
general  peace  of  the  kingdom,  to  see  such  an  arrangement  as 
should  remove  all  practical  cause  of  complaint  on  the  one  side, 
without  inciting  vague  and  indefinite  apprehensions  on  the  other; 
referring  to  a  more  favourable  opportunity,  and  to  the  progress  of 
public  opinion,  that  complete  and  final  settlement,  of  which  I  shall 
never  cease  to  maintain  the  expediency  as  well  as  the  justice. 

I  turn  now,  Gentlemen,  to  the  second  question,  with  which,  as 
much  as  with  the  former,  my  name  has  been  connected  in  popular 
observation,  and  often  in  popular  obloquy.  I  am  mistaken,  Gen- 
tlemen,— I  mean,  I  am  mis-represented,  my  purpose  is  mistaken, 
if  it  is  supposed  that  I  impute  to  those  who  support  the  question 
of  parliamentary  reform  a  distinct  apprehension  of  the  conse- 
quences to  which,  I  think,  their  doctrines  lead,  and  a  design  to 
promote  those  consequences.  It  is  with  their  doctrines  that  I 
quarrel,  and  not  with  their  motives;  and  it  has  been  my  desire 
always  to  discuss  the  question  argumentatively  rather  than  angrily, 
with  those  who  are  opposed  to  me  in  opinion.  I  wish  them  to  state 
to  me — to  me?  I  wish  them  to  state  to  themselves,  distinctly,  the 
object  which  they  have  in  view, and  the  means  they  think  they  have 
to  attain  it.  Why,  Gentlemen,  what  are  the  general  arguments  by 
which  we  are  urged  to  admit  a  change  in  the  constitution  of  the 


520  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

House  of  Commons?     These  arguments  are  derived  from  expen- 
sive wars,  from  heavy  taxes,  and  from  severe  enactments,  consti- 
tuting, as  is  affirmed,  so  many  outrageous  inroads  upon  the  Con- 
stitution.    Granted,  for  argument's  sake,  that  all  these  charges 
are  true.     Granted  that  all  the  proceedings  of  Parliament,  for 
many  years  past,  have  been  reprehensible.     But  were  they  the 
proceedings  of  the  House  of  Commons  alone?     Does  the  British 
Constitution  act  by  a  single  organ  ?     Has  there  been  no  concur- 
rence in  the  maintenance  of  those  wars,  no  consent  to  the  impo- 
sition of  those  taxes,  no  co-operation  in  the  passing  of  those  en- 
actments?   Is  there  no  other  assembly  in  existence  which  partook 
of  the  opinions  on  which  the  House  of  Commons  has  proceeded, 
and  which  would  make  therefore,  the  reform  of  the  House  of 
Commons  nugatory  for  the  professed  purposes,  unless  the  co-or- 
dinate authority  was  also  reformed  ?     If  you  reform  the  House  of 
Commons,  on  the  grounds  of  past  misconduct,  what  will  you  do 
with  the  House  of  Lords?     If  the  House  of  Commons  is  to  be 
reformed,  because  it  sanctioned  the  war  with  America  ;  if  it  is  to 
be  reformed,  because  it  maintained  the  war  with  France — (sink- 
ing, for  a  moment,  the  undoubted  fact,  that  the  war  with  America 
was  a  favourite  measure  with  the  people  of  this  country  as  much 
as  with  the  Government;  sinking,  for  a  moment,  the  undoubted 
fact,  that  the  war  with  France  was  emphatically  the  war  of  the 
nation;) — if  the  House  of  Commons,  I  ask,  is  to  be  reformed,  be- 
cause it  approved  and  supported  those  wars;  if  it  is  to  be  reformed, 
because  it  passed  laws  for  the  suppression  of  internal  disturbance,  is 
the  House  of  Lords  to  go  free,  which  consented  to  those  wars,  and  of 
those  acts  consented  to  all,  while  some  of  them,  and  those  not  the 
least  severe,  it  originated  ?     If  no  such  reform  is  to  be  applied  to 
the  House  of  Lords,  what  is  the  supposed  effect  upon  that  House 
of  a  reform  of  the  House  of  Commons?     Let  us  fairly  speak  out: 
— Is  the  unreformed  House  of  Lords  to  continue  in  full  vigour, 
to  counteract  the  will  of  the  reformed  House  of  Commons  ?  Where, 
then,  is  the  use  of  the  reform  ?     Or,  is  the  reformed  House  of 
Commons  to  act  upon  the  House  of  Lords  by  intimidation  and 
compulsion?     Aye! — That,  to  be  sure,  is  what  must  be  meant, 
if  there  be  truth  in  the  argument;  but  that  is  what  no  man  will  say. 
My  quarrel,  then,  with  this  course  of  argument  is — not  that  it 
aims  at  an  alteration — at  an  improvement,  if  you  please,  in  the 
House  of  Commons;  but — that  it  aims  at  quite  another  thing  than 
the  House  of  Commons  as  a  part  of  a  legislature.     The  legislative 
authority  of  the  state,  according  to  the  Constitution  as  it  stands,  is 
shared  between  two  houses  of  Parliament; — the  suggested  reform 
goes  to  provide  a  single  instrument,  which  shall  not  only  do  its 
own  work,  but  inevitably  control  the  working  of  the  other;  which, 
if  the  object  of  the  reform   is  obtained,  must  act  so  powerfully, 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  521 

that  it  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  reject  any  co-ordinate 
power,  and  speedily  act  alone. 

I  have  never  stated  it  as  a  beauty  of  the  Constitution,  that  Old 
Sarum  should  have  but  as  many  voters  as  representatives.  Let  it 
have  two  thousand,  with  all  my  heart.  I  have  never  stated  it  as 
a  beauty  and  perfection  of  the  Constitution,  that  this  or  that  great 
peer  should  be  able  to  return  persons  of  his  choice  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  in  Parliament.  I  have  never  said,  that 
detected  corruption  should  not  be  punished.  In  God's  name,  dis- 
franchise other  corrupt  boroughs  as  you  disfranchised  Grampound. 
But  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat,  that  I  see  no  way  of  counteracting 
the  influence  of  property,  and  that  I  can  imagine  no  process  of 
amputation  of  close  boroughs — on  the  ground,  not  of  practical 
punishment,  but  of  speculative  improvement,  and  on  the  principle 
that  the  House  of  Commons  ought  to  speak  the  direct  sense  of 
the  people — which  does  not  lead,  by  inevitable  inference,  to  a 
total  alteration  of  the  functions  of  the  House  of  Commons.  If  by 
"people"  is  meant  the  nation  (and  it  is  in  the  equivocal  use  of 
this  word  that  much  of  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  lies;) — if  an 
assembly,  "representing  the  people,"  is  meant  to  be  the  un- 
doubted, exclusive  organ  of  national  will — I  ask,  when  the  nation 
has  once  such  an  organ,  what  room  is  there  for  another  legislative 
establishment?     How  can  a  second  exist,  and  what  is  it  to  do? 

Gentlemen,  on  a  recent  occasion,  in  a  neighbouring  county,  a 
most  respectable  gentleman,  respectable  from  family,  respectable 
from  private  character  and  from  talents,  has  done  me  the  honour 
to  refer  to  my  opinions  with  some  expressions  of  surprise.  Mr. 
Fawkes  (I  name  him  with  due  honour,  for  what  I  believe  to  be 
his  individual  worth)  expressed  great  surprise,  that  I,  being  the 
representative  of  the  second  commercial  town  in  this  great  king- 
dom, should  feel  any  anxiety  for  the  fate  of  the  close  parts  of  the 
representation.  Surprise  for  surprise.  For  I  may,  in  my  turn, 
be  surprised,  that  a  gentleman  of  Yorkshire,  in  which  county  the 
clamour  for  reform  began,  some  years  ago,  on  the  ground  of  the 
inadequacy  of  its  own  particular  representation,  should  seize  the 
present  moment,  when  that  representation  has  just  been  doubled 
by  Parliament,  for  agitating  anew  the  question  of  parliamentary 
reform.  I  know  no  grievance,  in  the  present  constitution  of  Par- 
liament, which  has  been  so  constantly  dinned  into  my  ears,  from 
my  very  youth,  as  the  destitute  state  of  Yorkshire  in  being  al- 
lowed to  send  only  two  of  her  sons  to  Parliament.  She  has  been 
long,  "like  Niobe,  all  tears"  on  this  account:  but  now  the  griev- 
ance is  remedied;  and,  at  the  very  moment  when  this  is  done, 
one  of  the  most,  gifted  of  the  sons  of  this  unhappy  matron  comes 
forward,  and,  instead  of  returning  thanks  in  behalf  of  his  parent 
county,  expatiates  loudly,  in  her  name,  on  the  inadequate  repre- 
68  uu* 


522  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

sentation  of  England!  A  Yorkshire-man  might  have  been  too 
well  pleased  with  the  recent  attention  to  her  long-neglected  claims 
to  be  in  a  humour  to  find  fault  with  Parliament  just  at  this  mo- 
ment. But,  Gentlemen,  why  am  I,  more  than  Mr.  Fawkes,  to 
confine  my  attention  to  my  own  particular  share  of  the  represen- 
tation ?  So  far  from  my  situation,  as  representative  of  the  second 
town  in  the  empire,  stifling  my  voice  on  this  subject,  I  have  not 
the  slightest  hesitation  in  saying,  that  if  I  were  member  for  Old 
Sarum,  I  should,  more  probably,  hold  my  tongue  upon  it.  It  is 
because  I  am  a  member  for  Liverpool;  because  I  can  have  no 
shadow  of  personal  interest  in  maintaining  that  more  imperfect 
species  of  representation,  which  I  do,  nevertheless,  conscientiously 
maintain; — it  is  because  my  opinion  cannot  be  questioned,  as  in- 
fluenced by  motives  of  individual  convenience,  that  I  feel  a  con- 
fidence, which  I  otherwise  might  not  feel,  in  exposing  what  I 
think  the  fallacy  of  those  doctrines  which  push  the  principle  of 
direct  personal  representation  to  an  extent  such  as,  if  adopted, 
must  change  the  Constitution. 

Let  any  man  say,  that  his  views  of  reform  go  no  farther  than 
to  the  removal  of  blots,  and  I  am  with  him.  But  it  is  because  the 
arguments  for  reform  tend  much  further; — it  is  because  they  tend 
not  to  remedy,  but  to  destroy;  not  to  correct  what  may  be  amiss 
in  a  system  of  representation  which  combines  all  species  of  prop- 
erty, admits  all  species  of  industry,  opens  the  door  to  all  species 
of  talent; — it  is  because  they  appear  to  me  to  tend  to  a  system  to 
be  founded  exclusively  on  what  is  called  the  power  of  the  people; 
a  power  which,  if  recognised  in  the  sense  in  which  they  proclaim 
it,  must  act,  not  in  concert  with  other  powers,  not  by  a  conflict 
and  compromise  of  different  interests;  but  by  its  own  uncontrolled 
authority,  supreme  and  alone;  it  is  for  this  reason  that  I  think 
it  right  to  oppose,  in  limine,  projects  of  parliamentary  reform. 

Gentleman,  it  is  said,  however,  that,  besides  the  faulty  compo- 
sition of  the  House  of  Commons,  there  is  an  influence  of  the 
Crown  which  perverts  and  parylzes  all  its  functions.  My  first 
answer  to  this  proposition  is  the  same  which  I  have  made  to  the 
proposition  for  alteration  in  the  House  of  Commons.  How  rarely 
does  the  House  of  Lords  differ  from  the  other  House  in  its  de- 
cisions!— How  much  more  rarely  does  it  differ  in  a  more  popular 
sense!  Is  it  the  influence  of  the  Crown  which  predominates  in 
the  House  of  Lords  too  ?  If  it  is — do  you  mean  to  leave  the 
House  of  Lords  still  subject  to  the  same  influence,  and  still  with 
an  equal  voice  in  the  decision  of  every  national  question  ?  If  not 
— is  not  the  project  still,  though  upon  another  pretext,  to  erect  an 
instrument  which  will  make  the  operation  of  the  House  of  Lords 
completely  nugatory;  to  place  in  a  new,  an  untried  organ,  the 
whole  practical  energy  of  the  Constitution  ? 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  523 

I  do  verily  and  sincerely  believe,  that  there  is  no  proposition 
more  false,  than  that  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  any  more  than 
its  direct  power,  has  increased  comparatively  with  the  increasing 
strength,  wealth,  and  population  of  the  country.  To  these,  if  the 
Crown  be  good  for  any  thing  at  all  in  the  Constitution,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  its  power  and  influence  should  bear  some  reasonable  pro- 
portion. I  deny  that,  in  the  House  of  Commons — I  deny  that, 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  such  an  increase  can  be  shown;  but  fur- 
ther I  contend,  that,  in  speculating  upon  the  practical  play  of  our 
Constitution,  we  narrow  our  view  of  its  efficient  principles,  of  its 
progress,  and  of  the  state  in  which  it  now  stands,  if  we  do  not 
take  into  account  other  powers,  extrinsic  to  the  two  Houses  of 
Parliament,  which  are  at  work  in  the  moral  and  political  world, 
and  which  require  to  be  balanced  and  counterpoised  in  their 
operation. 

What  should  we  think  of  that  philosopher,  who,  in  writing,  at 
the  present  day,  a  treatise  upon  naval  architecture  and  the  theory 
of  navigation,  should  omit  wholly  from  his  calculation  that  new 
and  mighty  power — new,  at  least,  in  the  application  of  its  might 
— which  walks  the  water  like  a  giant  rejoicing  in  his  course; — 
stemming  alike  the  tempest  and  the  tide; — accelerating  inter- 
course, shortening  distances; — creating,  as  it  were,  unexpected 
neighbourhoods,  and  new  combinations  of  social  and  commercial 
relation; — and  giving  to  the  fickleness  of  winds  and  the  faithless- 
ness of  waves  the  certainty  and  steadiness  of  a  highway  upon  the 
land?  Such  a  writer,  though  he  might  describe  a  ship  correctly, 
though  he  might  show  from  what  quarters  the  winds  of  heaven 
blow,  would  be  surely  an  incurious  and  an  idle  spectator  of  the  pro- 
gress of  nautical  science,  who  did  not  see  in  the  power  of  steam 
a  corrective  of  all  former  calculations.  So,  in  political  science, 
he  who,  speculating  on  the  British  Constitution,  should  content 
himself  with  marking  the  distribution  of  acknowledged  technical 
powers  between  the  House  of  Lords,  the  House  of  Commons,  and 
the  Crown,  and  assigning  to  each  their  separate  provinces — to  the 
Lords  their  legislative  authority — to  the  Crown  its  veto  (how 
often  used?) — to  the  House  of  Commons  its  power  of  stopping 
supplies  (how  often,  in  fact,  necessary  to  be  resorted  to?) — and 
should  think  that  he  had  thus  described  the  British  Constitution 
as  it  acts  and  as  it  is  influenced  in  its  action;  but  should  omit  from 
his  enumeration  that  mighty  power  of  public  opinion,  embodied 
in  a  free  press,  which  pervades,  and  checks,  and,  perhaps,  in  the 
last  resort,  nearly  governs  the  whole; — such  a  man  would,  surely, 
give  but  an  imperfect  view  of  the  Government  of  England  as  it 
is  now  modified,  and  would  greatly  underrate  the  counteracting 
influences  against  which  that  of  the  executive  power  has  to 
contend. 


524  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  one  plain  test,  which  I  think  it  wholesome 
to  apply  to  all  speculative  projects  of  political  improvement.  I 
consider,  first,  not  how  they  might  operate  for  the  general  benefit 
of  mankind: — that  is  a  wide  consideration,  indeed,  and  fit  to  be 
deeply  studied  at  leisure;  but  is  not,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the  im- 
mediate business  of  the  British  statesman,  providing  for  British 
interests:  and,  I  confess,  that  as,  in  private  life,  I  generally  look 
with  caution  on  that  diffusive  benevolence  which  neglects  the 
circle  immediately  around  it;  so  I  look  with  some  little  suspicion 
to  that  spirit  of  general  improvement  which  is  ready  to  sacrifice, 
to  a  general  principle,  the  immediate  and  particular  safety  of  one's 
own  country.  I  inquire,  rather,  how  such  projects  are  likely  to 
operate  on  the  British  Constitution;  which  I  find  to  be  a  mon- 
archy— a  monarchy  qualified,  indeed,  with  establishments,  which 
limit,  which  restrain,  which  control  it — but,  fundamentally  and 
essentially,  a  monarchy.  I  do  not  think  myself  bound  to  enter 
the  lists  to  show  why  the  British  Constitution  should  be  a  mon- 
archy. I  am  not  called  upon  to  demonstrate,  a  priori,  that  it 
was  necessary  that  the  British  Constitution  should  be  a  monarchy, 
any  more  than  that  Great  Britain  should  be  an  island.  It  is  quite 
sufficient  for  me  that  I  find  these  things  so;  it  is  quite  sufficient 
for  me  to  know  that  Providence  has  ordained  the  one,  and  that 
the  acts  of  our  ancestors,  from  immemorial  time,  acquiesced  in 
and  confirmed  by  a  long  succession  of  generations,  have  clearly 
ascertained  the  other;  and  have  thus,  although  without  any  indi- 
vidual vote  or  consent,  imposed  upon  me  the  duty  of  allegiance 
to  the  monarchy  under  which  I  have  been  born. 

I  know  how  tame,  and  servile,  and  abject  this  sort  of  reasoning 
sounds,  in  an  age  when  it  is  so  much  more  the  fashion  to  appeal 
to  theory  than  to  fact;  to  try  every  existing  establishment  by 
some  abstract  model  of  excellence.  But,  Gentlemen,  against  a 
popular  assembly,  constituted  on  the  principles  on  which  parlia- 
mentary reform  is  alleged  to  be  necessary  (the  effective  conse- 
quence of  which  principles  does,  I  willingly  admit,  go  beyond 
either  the  avowal,  or,  I  dare  say,  the  intention  of  those  who  pro- 
fess them) — I  say,  against  a  popular  assembly,  so  constituted,  no 
monarchy  could  stand.  Such  a  government  must  be,  practically, 
whatever  it  be  in  name,  a  republic.  I  do  not  think  myself  at 
liberty  to  discuss  the  question,  whether  that  be  a  better  kind  of 
Government.  I  feel  myself,  I  confess,  circumscribed  within  the 
limits  of  the  existing  Constitution. 

u  Spartam  nactus  es,  hanc  exorna." 

Improve,  as  you  can,  the  Constitution  which  has  fallen  to  your 
lot.     The  attempt  to  alter  by  force  that  Constitution,  is  one  which 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  525 

the  law  has  branded  in  disagreeable  terms.  I  agree  with  the  law, 
and  would  endeavour  to  prevent  that  from  being  done  through 
inadvertence,  which,  undoubtedly,  there  is  no  danger  of  any  one's 
attempting  to  do  by  design.  In  short,  in  all  improvements  we 
must  conform  to  the  nature  of  the  country  to  which  we  belong. 
Like  the  King  of  Bohemia,  who  had  an  extreme  desire  to  be  a 
naval  power,  but  whose  laudable  ambition  was  checked  by  this 
only  impediment,  that  there  was  no  sea-port  in  his  kingdom. 

So  much,  Gentlemen,  as  to  the  principles  of  parliamentary  re- 
form; and  as  to  the  principles  of  my  resistance  to  it,  as  a  general 
proposition.  Let  me  now  call  your  attention,  for  a  short  time,  to 
the  practical  uses  to  which  parliamentary  reform  is  by  its  advo- 
cates proposed  to  be  applied.  Five  or  six  years  ago  there  was 
great  suffering  among  the  labouring  classes.  Provisions  were  at 
such  a  price,  as  to  be  almost  unattainable  by  the  poorest  order  of 
the  people.  The  grievance  in  which  these  sufferings  originated, 
was  alleged  to  be  the  corn  bill.  The  corn  bill  was  passed  by  the 
influence  of  the  landholders.  The  remedy  was  in  some  change 
which  would  put  that  influence  down ;  and  we  all  remember 
what  a  clamour  was  then  raised  for  parliamentary  reform.  Well! 
— times  come  round;  there  is  now  such  a  plenty,  such  a  glut  of 
provisions,  that  the  humblest  classes  of  society  are  enjoying  com- 
parative affluence.  In  the  manufacturing  districts,  there  is  con- 
stant and  steady  employment;  at  wages  somewhat  reduced,  it  is 
true,  but  sufficient,  in  general,  for  comfortable  maintenance.  And 
these  blessings  are  further  felt  in  a  reduction  of  the  poor-rates, 
and,  God  be  thanked,  in  a  remarkable  diminution  of  crime.  I 
do  not  know,  Gentlemen,  whether  all  these  particulars  consti- 
tute a  flourishing  state  of  the  community;  but  I  do  know,  that  the 
absence  of  them  was  considered  as  constituting  a  state  of  things 
too  bad  to  bear;  and  I  cannot  but  think,  that  whatever  partial 
evils  accompany  these  blessings,  those  who,  five  or  six  years  ago, 
thought  the  Parliament  good  for  nought,  because  the  landholders 
had  passed  a  corn  bill,  and  because  the  poor-rates  were  augmented, 
and  because  the  calendars  were  swelled  with  crime,  must  now  con- 
sent to  sympathise  with  prosperity  which  grows  out  of  the  reverse 
of  the  evils  of  which  they  complained.  But,  gentlemen,  while  the 
labouring  classes  of  the  people  are  in  this  state  of  enjoyment,  while 
work  is  plenty,  while  the  poor-rates  and  crimes  are  diminishing, 
the  growers  of  corn  are  suffering.  And  what  is  the  remedy  ? 
Parliamentary  reform!  So  that,  in  the  year  1817,  when  you  suf- 
fered under  high  prices,  Parliamentary  reform  was  the  cure  for 
that  calamity;  and  now,  when  the  landholders  are  suffering  under 
cheapness,  parliamentary  reform  is  necessary  the  other  way!  And 
for  what  purpose?  To  restore,  I  suppose,  the  good  old  times  of 
1817.     Let  me  not  be  understood  as  underrating  the  pressure  of 


526  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

either  of  these  evils;  in  both  states  of  things  there  is  much  to 
lament,  and  in  that  which  now  exists  there  is  much  which  I  wish 
to  God  I  could  see  the  way  to  cure.  But  as  to  Parliamentary 
reform,  as  the  remedy  for  either — much  more  as  the  remedy  for 
both — I  will  ask  any  man,  whether  there  is  common  sense  in  such 
a  proposition — whether  the  double  clamour  for  it  be  not  a  pre- 
sumption rather  in  favour  of  the  impartiality  with  which  Parlia- 
ment has  acted  in  both  these  painful  extremes? 

But  parliamentary  reform  is  the  panacea  for  every  evil.  I  read, 
a  few  days  ago,  (I  cannot  immediately  recollect  where,)  a  story 
of  an  artist  who  had  attained  great  eminence  in  painting,  but  who 
had  directed  his  art  chiefly  to  one  favourite  object.  That  object 
happened  to  be  a  red  lion.  His  first  employment  was  at  a  public 
house,  where  the  landlord  allowed  him  to  follow  his  fancy.  Of 
course  the  artist  recommended  a  red  lion.  A  gentleman  in  the 
neighborhood,  having  a  new  dining-room  to  ornament,  applied  to 
the  artist  for  his  assistance;  and,  in  order  that  he  might  have  full 
scope  for  his  talents,  left  to  him  the  choice  of  a  subject  for  the 
principal  compartment  of  the  room.  The  painter  took  due  time 
to  deliberate;  and  then,  with  the  utmost  gravity  and  earnestness 
— "Don't  you  think,"  said  he  to  his  employer,  "that  a  handsome 
red  lion  would  have  a  fine  effect  in  this  situation  ?"  The  gentle- 
man was  not  entirely  convinced,  perhaps ;  however,  he  let  the 
painter  have  his  way  in  this  instance;  determined,  nevertheless, 
that  in  his  library,  to  which  he  next  conducted  the  artist,  he  would 
have  something  of  more  exquisite  device  and  ornament.  He  show- 
ed him  a  small  panel  over  his  chimney-piece.  "  Here,"  says  he, 
I  must  have  something  striking.  The  space,  you  see,  is  but  small, 
the  workmanship  must  be  proportionably  delicate."  "What  think 
you,"  says  the  painter,  after  appearing  to  dive  deep  into  his  ima- 
gination for  the  suggestion,  "what  think  you  of  a  small  red  lion?" 
Just  so  it  is  with  parliamentary  reform.  Whatever  may  be  the 
evil,  the  remedy  is  a  parliamentary  reform;  and  the  utmost  vari- 
ety that  you  can  extort  from  those  that  call  themselves  "  mode- 
rate reformers"  is,  that  they  will  be  contented  with  a  small  red 
lion ! 

Gentlemen,  I  wish  that  these  theories  were  only  entertaining; 
but  they  have  mischief  in  them;  and  I  wish  that  against  them  the 
country  should  be  on  its  guard.  I  confess  I  am  against  even  the 
smallest  of  these  red  lions;  I  object  not  to  the  size,  but  to  the 
species.  I  fear  the  smallest  would  be  but  the  precursor  of  the 
whole  menagerie;  and  that,  if  once,  propitiated  by  his  smallness, 
you  open  the  door  for  his  admission,  you  will  find,  when  you 
wanted  him  to  turn  out  again,  that  he  had  been  pampered  to  a 
formidable  size  in  his  cage. 

Gentlemen,  in  the  times  in  which  we  live,  there  is  (disguise  it 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  527 

how  we  may)  a  struggle  going  on, — in  some  countries  an  open, 
and  in  some  a  tacit  struggle,  between  the  principles  of  monarchy 
and  democracy.  God  be  praised,  that  in  that  struggle  we  have 
not  any  part  to  take.  God  be  praised,  that  we  have  long  ago 
arrived  at  all  the  blessings  that  are  to  be  derived  from  that  which 
alone  can  end  such  a  struggle  beneficially, — a  compromise  and 
intermixture  of  those  confiicting.principles.  It  is  not,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  the  duty  of  this  country  to  side  either  with  the  assailants, 
where  they  aim  at  too  much,  nor  with  those  who  stand  on  the 
defensive,  when  they  will  grant  nothing.  England  has  only  to 
maintain  herself  on  the  basis  of  her  own  solid  and  settled  Consti- 
tution, firm,  unshaken, — a  spectatress  interested  in  the  contest  only 
by  her  sympathies: — not  a  partisan  on  either  side,  but,  for  the  sake 
of  both,  a  model,  and  ultimately,  perhaps,  an  umpire.  Should  we 
be  led,  by  any  false  impulse  of  chivalrous  benevolence,  to  parti- 
cipate in  the  struggle  itself,  we  commit,  and  thereby  impair,  our 
authority;  we  abandon  the  position  in  which  we  might  hereafter 
do  most  good,  and  may  bring  the  danger  of  a  foreign  struggle 
home  to  our  own  hearths  and  to  our  own  institutions. 

Gentlemen,  with  an  audience  less  enlightened  than  that  which 
I  have  had  the  honor  to  address,  I  should  have  avoided  topics  of 
such  general  interest,  and  confined  myself  to  the  particulars  of 
our  local  connexion.  But,  gentlemen,  our  connexion  is  one  of 
principle;  it  had  its  foundation  in  principle;  on  that  it  has  been 
raised  and  cemented.  Gentlemen,  whatever  may  be  my  future 
destination,  it  will  be  a  comfort  unspeakable  to  me  to  have  laid, 
in  that  connexion,  the  foundation,  I  trust,  of  mutual  and  lasting 
regard,  which  has  cheered  every  stage  of  our  intercourse,  and  will 
long  survive  our  separation. 

Gentlemen,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  expected  of  me,  especially  after 
the  speech  of  my  worthy  friend,  your  president,  that  I  should  say 
a  few  words  to  you  on  the  topics  to  which  he  has  alluded.  I  have 
doubted  much  and  long  whether  I  should  refer  to  those  topics  at 
all,  or  should  persevere  in  the  silence  which  I  have  hitherto  pre- 
scribed to  myself  upon  them;  whether  I  should  incur  the  risk,  on 
the  one  hand,  of  being  supposed  not  to  have  dealt  openly  with 
you;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  the  risk  of  that  misconstruction,  of 
various  sorts,  to  which  a  public  man,  who  speaks  of  himself,  must 
expect  to  be  exposed.  On  full  reflection,  I  have  determined  to 
brave  the  latter  danger  rather  than  the  former.  I  prefer  submit- 
ing  to  any  misconstruction,  to  any  inconvenience,  rather  than  that 
it  should  ever  be  thought  that  I  had  repaid  your  unbounded  con- 
fidence with  any  thing  like  concealment  or  distrust.  Gentlemen, 
after  this  preface,  you  will,  perhaps,  be,  in  one  sense,  disappointed 
to  hear,  that  all  that  I  have  to  say  is,  that,  upon  my  honour,  I  have 
nothing  to  tell.     But  it  is  as  necessary  for  me  to  make  that  con- 


528  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

fession,  as  it  would  have  been  to  make  a  communication,  had  I 
any  to  make.  I  do  assure  you,  that  I  know  as  little  as  any  man 
that  now  listens  to  me,  of  any  arrangements  likely  to  grow  out  of 
the  present  state  of  things.  I  cannot  pretend  ignorance,  indeed, 
of  rumours  which  are  in  every  one's  mouth;  but  I  assure  you, 
that,  upon  my  honour,  at  the  moment  at  which  I  am  speaking  to 
you,  I  have  nothing  either  to  tellpr  to  conceal. 

Gentlemen,  you  will  not  expect  that  I  shall  enter  into  any 
explanation  as  to  what  might  be  the  decision  which  I  might  think 
it  right  to  take  upon  any  such  occurrence  as  these  rumors  have  in 
contemplation.  This  only,  gentlemen,  I  can  frankly  declare  to 
you,  that,  in  any  such  case,  my  decision  would  be  founded  upon 
an  honest  and  impartial  view  of  public  considerations  alone,  and 
that  it  would  be  determined,  not  by  a  calculation  of  interests,  but 
by  a  balance  and  comparison  of  duties. 

Enough,  gentlemen,  on  a  topic  to  which  I  doubt  whether  I 
should,  even  now,  have  alluded,  but  for  the  most  unexpected, 
although  amicable  provocation  of  my  worthy  friend  in  the  chair; 
and  I  have  only  now  to  hope,  that  having  been,  as  I  learn,  mis- 
construed on  account  of  my  silence  in  another  place,  I  shall  not 
be  misconstrued  in  an  opposite  direction  on  account  of  what  I 
have  said  here.  From  my  silence  then,  it  has  been  inferred,  that 
I  intended  ostentatiously  to  declare  a  determination  to  refuse  office 
at  home,  if  it  should  be  proposed  to  me.  I  beg  I  may  not  be 
misconstrued  now  in  an  opposite  sense,  as  intending  to  express, 
or  as  feeling,  in  the  slightest  degree,  any  anxiety,  any  expectation, 
or  desire  for  such  a  proposal.  My  only  anxiety,  I  most  solemnly 
declare,  is  to  state  the  truth  to  those  who  have  a  right  to  know  it, 
inasmuch  as  their  kindness  and  attachment  to  me  give  them  an 
interest  in  whatever  concerns  me. 

Gentlemen,  wherever  my  lot  may  be  cast,  may  this  great  com- 
munity continue  to  flourish  in  the  prosperity  now  happily  begin- 
ning to  be  restored  to  it,  after  the  fluctuations  of  war  and  peace; — 
in  the  principles  from  which  it  has  never  swerved,  since  I  have 
had  the  honour  to  be  acquainted  with  it;  in  the  honourable  and 
liberal  spirit  which  pervades  all  classes  of  its  society,  and  which 
marks  even  its  political  divisions; — and  in  that  cordial  union  which 
binds  all  its  members  together,  without  distinction  of  party,  in  any 
thing  which  relates  to  the  interest  of  your  town,  or  to  the  benefit 
of  the  humbler  part  of  its  population.  May  it  flourish,  an  image 
of  splendid  commercial  greatness,  unalloyed  by  the  besetting  vices 
which  sometimes  grow  to  such  greatness;  an  image  of  those 
princely  merchants  whose  history  one  of  your  own  body  has 
illustrated;  mixing,  like  them,  with  the  pursuits  of  trade,  the 
cultivation  of  liberal  science ;  decorating  your  town  with  the 
works  of  art,  as  much  as  it  is  enriched  by  enterprise  and  industry; 


ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  529 

and  placing  it,  by  the  variety  of  its  useful,  and  the  munificence 
of  its  charitable  establishments,  among  the  most  celebrated  cities 
of  the  world.  May  you  flourish  in  the  happiness  and  renown  to 
which  these  qualities  entitle  you ;  and,  when  you  look  for  another 
individual  to  occupy  the  station  which  I  have,  for  ten  years,  filled, 
may  you  find  one  more  competent  to  the  task  than  I  have  been: 
— one  more  devoted  to  your  interests,  more  anxious  for  your 
prosperity,  or  more  thankful  for  your  kindness,  I  am  sure  you 
cannot  find. 


69  ww 


5:50 


SPEECH 

AT  A  PUBLIC  DINNER  IN  THE  TOWN-HALL  IN  1823,  ON  THE 
OCCASION  OF  PROPOSING  THE  HEALTH  OF  MR.  HUGHES,  THE 
REPRESENTATIVE    OF   AMERICA,  AT  THE    COURT   OF    SWEDEN. 

Mr.  Canning  said,  that,  with  the  kind  permission  of  the  chair, 
he  rose  to  propose  a  toast,  which,  he  felt  confident,  would  be 
received  by  the  company  with  the  most  sincere  and  cordial  satis- 
faction. He  alluded  to  the  health  of  the  distinguished  stranger 
then  near  him,  who  was  on  his  way  to  Sweden,  as  the  represent- 
ative of  his  country,  the  United  States  of  America.  He  was  most 
happy  to  avail  himself  of  this  opportunity,  amidst  so  large  an 
assemblage  of  some  of  the  first  merchants  of  England,  of  congrat- 
ulating that  gentleman  on  the  full  and  uninterrupted  intercourse 
which  now  existed  between  his  country  and  our  own;  an  inter- 
course, of  which  the  value  could  be  nowhere  so  well  understood  as 
in  this  great  town,  which  was,  both  in  point  of  local  situation  and 
of  spirit  and  enterprize,  so  pre-eminently  qualified  to  derive  from 
that  intercourse  every  possible  advantage.  On  such  an  occasion 
he'  might  be  permitted  to  express  the  gratification  which  he  felt, 
in  common  with  the  great  mass  of  the  intelligent  and  liberal  men 
of  both  countries,  to  see  the  animosities  necessarily  attendant  on 
a  state  of  hostility  so  rapidly  wearing  away,  and  giving  place  to 
feelings  so  much  more  consonant  to  the  true  interests  of  two 
nations  united  by  a  common  language,  a  common  spirit  of  commer- 
cial enterprize,  and  a  common  regard  for  well-regulated  liberty.  It 
appeared  to  him,  that  of  two  such  states  the  relative  position  was 
not  wholly  unlike  that  which  occasionally  occurred  in  families; 
where  a  child  having,  perhaps,  displeased  a  parent — a  daughter, 
for  instance,  in  contracting  a  connexion  offensive  to  that  parent's 
feelings,  some  estrangement  would  for  a  while  necessarily  ensue; 
but,  after  a  lapse  of  time,  the  irritation  is  forgotten,  the  force  of 
blood  again  prevails,  and  the  daughter  and  the  mother  stand  to- 
gether against  the  world.  That  all  causes  of  dissension  may  have 
now  ceased  forever  between  two  countries  so  strongly  bound  to 
each  other,  and  with  so  clear  a  community  of  interests,  he  most 
sincerely  hoped;  and  he  trusted,  that,  in  whatever  part  of  the 
world  Mr.  Hughes  might  represent  his  country,  he  would  feel, 
that  in  no  part  of  it  could  that  country's  merits  be  more  truly 
appreciated  than  in  this. 


531 


SPEECH 

ON  THE  16TH  OP  APRIL,  1816,  AT  A  DINNER    GIVEN    TO    MR.  CAN- 
NING BY  THE  BRITISH  MERCHANTS  RESIDENT  AT  LISBON. 

I  am  deeply  sensible,  gentlemen,  of  the  honour  done  me  by 
this  meeting,  and  I  am  highly  flattered  by  the  sentiments  with 
which  you  have  been  pleased  to  couple  my  name. 

To  have  been  a  disciple  of  Mr.  Pitt,  and  to  have  been  a  sharer 
in  those  councils,  in  which  originated  the  struggle  for  the  salvation 
of  Portugal,  are  the  two  circumstances  in  my  political  life,  on 
which,  if  on  any,  I  look  back  with  pride  and  gratification. 

It  is  a  pride  to  me  to  have  imbibed  the  principles  of  Mr.  Pitt, 
and  a  gratification  to  receive  your  testimony  of  the  just  applica- 
tion of  those  principles  to  the  measures  by  which  this  country  was 
saved:  principles  of  which  the  characteristic  was  to  cherish  order 
and  industry  at  home,  as  the  true  sources  of  commercial  opulence 
and  national  strength  abroad;  to  consider  the  peace,  and  power, 
and  safety  of  Great  Britain,  as  bound  up  with  the  security  and 
independence  of  other  nations.  From  this  system  of  internal  and 
external  policy,  Great  Britain  derived  the  means,  and  imposed 
upon  herself  the  duty,  of  sustaining  the  long  contest  with  France, 
which  preceded  the  war  of  the  Peninsula. 

In  pursuance  of  that  policy,  those  who  had  the  direction  of  the 
British  councils,  at  the  moment  when  the  grasping  hand  of  France 
was  extended  to  seize  the  crown  and  liberties  of  Portugal,  did  not 
hesitate  to  fly  to  her  assistance. 

The  good  sense,  the  feeling,  and  the  generosity  of  the  British 
nation,  went  with  their  Government  in  the  undertaking.  But 
sanguine  and  visionary  enthusiasts,  I  well  remember,  were  they 
deemed  to  be,  who  thought  that  from  the  struggle  for  Portugal, 
might  issue  the  deliverance  of  Europe.  Such  an  enthusiast  I  was, 
and  always  avowed  myself  to  be. 

I  made  this  avowal,  even  in  times  when  the  contest  was  most 
doubtful,  and  by  many  held  to  be  desperate. 

True  it  was,  that  clouds  and  darkness  occassionally  gathered  on 
the  horizon:  but  even  through  those  clouds  and  through  that  dark- 
ness, I  saw,  or  fondly  fancied  I  saw,  a  ray  of  light  which  promised 
to  pierce  the  gloom,  and  which  might  hereafter  lighten  the  nations. 

It  is  not  at  this  time  of  day,  not  in  this  spot  that  I  am  called 
upon  to  justify  these  hopes  against  the  imputation  of  extravagance. 

Whether  as  a  just  and  natural  consequence  of  perseverance  in  a 
good  cause,  or  whether  by  the  special  favour  of  Providence,  true 
it  is,  in  fact,  that  from  this  nook  of  Europe  proceeded  the  impulse 


532  ELECTION   AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

by  which  its  mightiest  kingdoms  have  been  set  free.  True  it  is,  that 
in  this  sterile  and  unpromising  soil  was  deposited  the  seed  of  that 
security,  whose  branches  now  overshadow  mankind. 

From  these  recollections  and  associations,  the  land  in  which  we 
are  assembled,  derives  an  animating  and  classic  interest,  even  in 
the  eyes  of  the  most  indifferent  observer. 

For  my  own  part,  I  cannot  view  this  city,  in  which  for  so  many 
months  of  horror  and  anxiety,  amidst  a  condensed  and  suffering, 
but  unmurmuring  population,  the  hopes  of  Europe  lay  trembling 
for  their  doom: — I  could  not  traverse  those  mighty  fastnesses  of 
nature,  which  fence  this  capital,  those  bulwarks,  behind  which 
Victory  herself  retired,  to  new-plume  her  wings  for  a  flight  more 
soaring  and  more  sustained; — I  could  not  contemplate  those  holy 
ruins,  amongst  which  I  have  lately  been  wandering,  where  an  awful 
curiosity  pauses  to  inquire,  whether  the  surrounding  destruction 
has  been  wrought  by  ancient  convulsions  of  nature,  or  by  the 
sportive  sacrilege  and  barbarous  malignity  of  the  foe? — I  cannot 
behold  the  traces  of  desolation  in  this  country,  and  of  suffering 
among  the  people,  without  rendering  a  just  homage  to  the  char- 
acter of  a  nation,  which  by  all  that  it  has  done,  and  still  more  by 
all  that  it  has  endured,  has  raised  itself  to  a  pitch  of  moral  emi- 
nence, so  far  beyond  the  porportion  of  its  territory,  population,  or 
power. 

I  cannot  consider  all  these  things  without  blessing  that  wise  and 
benificent  policy,  which  brought  England  with  timely  speed,  to 
the  aid  of  such  a  nation;  to  call  forth  its  energies,  to  marshal  its 
resources,  to  support  and  invigorate  its  unyielding  constancy,  and 
after  its  own  deliverance  was  achieved,  to  lead  it  forth  in  pursuit 
of  its  oppressor. 

To  have  fought  together  in  such  a  cause,  to  have  mingled  ban- 
ners, and  to  have  mingled  blood  in  battles  for  such  interests,  and 
leading  to  such  results,  must,  undoubtedly,  cement  an  eternal 
union  between  the  British  and  Portuguese  nations. 

You  will  observe,  gentlemen,  that  I  am  anxious  to  state  the 
principle  of  our  connexion,  and  of  our  claims  upon  each  other,  in 
terms  not  of  comparison,  but  of  equality. 

I  do  so  with  sincerity,  because  I  believe  that  statement  to  be 
just;  I  might  do  so  from  policy,  even  if  I  doubted  of  its  justness. 
Portugal  would  not  have  been  saved  without  England,  it  is  true: 
but  Portugal  was  to  England  a  main  instrument  for  the  mightier 
task  which  England  had  to  perform. 

We  brought  hither  councils  and  arms,  and  British  discipline, 
and  British  valour;  we  found  here  willing  hearts  and  active  hands, 
n  confiding  Government,  a  people  brave  and  enduring,  docile  in 
instruction,  faithful  in  following,  patient  under  privations,  not  to 
be  subdued  by  disaster,  and  not  to  be  intoxicated  by  success. 


ELECTION   AND  DINNER  SPEECHES.  533 

The  arm  of  England  was  the  lever  that  wrenched  the  power  of 
Buonaparte  from  its  basis — Portugal  was  the  fulcrum  on  which 
that  lever  moved — England  fanned  and  fed  the  sacred  fire,  but 
Portugal  had  already  reared  the  altar  on  which  that  fire  was 
kindled,  and  from  which  it  mounted,  brightening  and  widening, 
until  the  world  was  illumined  with  its  blaze. 

I  have  said,  that  even  from  motives  of  policy,  I  would  state 
as  nearly  equal  as  possible,  the  balance  between  Portugal  and 
England.  There  is  a  principle  of  disunion  in  unequal  connec- 
tions. Active  beneficence  is  a  virtue  of  easier  practice  than  for- 
bearance after  having  conferred,  or  than  thankfulness  after  having 
received,  a  benefit. 

I  know  not,  indeed,  whether  it  be  a  greater  and  more  difficult 
exercise  of  magnanimity  for  the  one  party,  to  act  as  if  he  had  for- 
gotten, or  for  the  other,  as  if  he  constantly  remembered  the 
obligation. 

On  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  let  us  bear  in  mind  that  the  feel- 
ings to  which  we  addressed  ourselves  in  Portugal,  were  those  of 
national  pride  and  independence.  If  those  feelings  we  found 
equal  to  the  occasion,  what  wonder,  or  what  regret  that  they 
should  have  survived  it?  It  is  naturally  to  be  expected  that,  hav- 
ing accomplished  the  overthrow  of  its  enemies,  the  genius  of  the 
nation  should  carry  itself  with  somewhat  of  a  bolder  and  freer 
port,  even  towards  its  friends.  We  have  no  right  to  feel  this 
sorely.  It  would  be  neither  just  nor  becoming  in  us  so  to  do.  We 
should  respect,  even  in  its  excess,  an  independence  which  we 
have  vindicated,  and  should  pardon  even  the  waywardness  of  a 
spirit  which  we  have  raised. 

To  Portugal,  on  the  other  hand,  I  would  say,  that  there  is  no 
humiliation  in  the  sentiment  of  national  gratitude; — that  a  grate- 
ful mind  is  at  once  indebted  and  discharged,  and  recovers  its  level 
by  a  just  acknowledgement,  that  there  is  no  room  for  either  com- 
mercial or  political  jealousy  between  Great  Britain  and  Portugal; 
— that  the  world  is  large  enough  both  for  Portuguese  and  British 
Commerce; — and  that  Great  Britain,  while  she  has  never  been 
wanting  to  her  ally  in  time  of  need,  seeks  no  other  reward  for  all 
her  exertions,  and  all  her  sacrifices,  than  mutual  confidence  and 
common  prosperity. 

I  am  sure  that  I  shall  be  rightly  understood  by  all  those  in 
whose  presence  I  speak,  not  only  as  to  my  meaning,  but  as  to 
my  motives. 

The  delicacy  and  difficulty  of  the  situation  in  which  the  local 
Government,  of  this  kingdom  is  placed;  the  weight  of  their  re- 
sponsibility, and  the  anxiety  which  (as  I  have  witnessed)  neces- 
sarily attends  it,  entitle  them  to  peculiar  consideration.  I  have 
no  fear  of  their  disavowing  the  assurance  which  I  give  you  of 

w  w ' 


534  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

their  friendly  disposition  towards  this  meeting,  and  I  venture, 
therefore,  to  propose  to  you,  Gentlemen,  in  the  condfience  that 
you  will  receive  it  cordially,  and  that  your  cordiality  will  be  duly 
estimated  and  returned,  "  The  health  of  their  Excellencies  the 
Governors  of  the  Kingdom." 


535 


SPEECH 

at  plymouth,  in  the  year  1823,  upon  the  occasion  of  being 
presented  with  the  freedom  of  that  town. 

Mr.  Mayor  and  Gentlemen, 

I  accept  with  thankfulness,  and  with  greater  satisfaction  than  I 
can  express,  this  nattering  testimony  of  your  good  opinion  and 
goodwill.  I  must  add,  that  the  value  of  the  gift  itself  has  been 
greatly  enhanced  by  the  manner  in  which  your  worthy  and  hon- 
ourable Recorder  has  developed  the  motives  which  suggested  it, 
and  the  sentiments  which  it  is  intended  to  convey. 

Gentlemen,  your  Recorder  has  said  very  truly,  that  whoever, 
in  this  free  and  enlightened  state,  aims  at  political  eminence,  and 
discharges  political  duties,  must  expect  to  have  his  conduct  scruti- 
nized, and  every  action  of  his  public  life  sifted  with  no  ordinary 
jealousy,  and  with  no  sparing  criticism;  and  such  may  have  been 
my  lot  as  much  as  that  of  other  public  men.  But,  gentlemen, 
unmerited  obloquy  seldom  fails  of  an  adequate,  though  perhaps 
tardy,  compensation.  I  must  think  myself,  as  my  honourable 
friend  has  said,  eminently  fortunate,  if  such  compensation  as  he 
describes,  has  fallen  to  me  at  an  earlier  period  than  to  many 
others;  if  I  dare  flatter  myself  (as  his  partiality  has  nattered  me,) 
that  the  sentiments  that  you  are  kind  enough  to  entertain  for  me, 
are  in  unison  with  those  of  the  country;  if,  in  addition  to  the  jus- 
tice done  me  by  my  friends,  I  may,  as  he  has  assured  me,  rely 
upon  a  candid  construction,  even  from  political  opponents. 

But,  gentlemen,  the  secret  of  such  a  result  does  not  lie  deep. 
It  consists  only  in  an  honest  and  undeviating  pursuit  of  what  one 
conscientiously  believes  to  be  one's  public  duty — a  pursuit  which, 
steadily  continued,  will,  however  detached  and  separate  parts  of 
a  man's  conduct  may  be  viewed  under  the  influence  of  partialities 
or  prejudices,  obtain  for  it,  when  considered  as  a  whole,  the  ap- 
probation of  all  honest  and  honourable  minds.  Any  man  may 
occasionally  be  mistaken  as  to  the  means  most  conducive  to  the 
end  which  he  has  in  view;  but  if  the  end  be  just  and  praise-wor- 
thy, it  is  by  that  he  will  be  ultimately  judged,  either  by  his  con- 
temporaries or  by  posterity. 

Gentlemen,  the  end  which  I  confess  I  have  always  had  in  view, 
and  which  appears  to  me  the  legitimate  object  of  pursuit  to  a  Bri- 
tish statesman,  I  can  describe  in  one  word.  The  language  of 
modern  philosophy  is  wisely  and  diffusely  benevolent  ;  it  pro- 
fesses the  perfection  of  our  species,  and  the  amelioration  of  the 


536  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

lot  of  all  mankind.  Gentlemen,  I  hope  that  my  heart  beats  as 
high  for  the  general  interest  of  humanity — I  hope  that  I  have  as 
friendly  a  disposition  towards  other  nations  of  the  earth,  as  any 
one  who  vaunts  his  philanthropy  most  highly ;  but  I  am  contented 
to  confess,  that  in  the  conduct  of  political  affairs,  the  grand  object 
of  my  contemplation  is  the  interest  of  England. 

Not,  gentlemen,  that  the  interest  of  England  is  an  interest 
which  stands  isolated  and  alone.  The  situation  which  she  holds 
forbids  an  exclusive  selfishness;  her  prosperity  must  contribute  to 
the  prosperity  of  other  nations,  and  her  stability  to  the  safety  of 
the  world.  But,  intimately  connected  as  we  are  with  the  system 
of  Europe,  it  does  not  follow  that  we  are  therefore  called  upon  to 
mix  ourselves  on  every  occasion,  with  a  restless  and  meddling 
activity,  in  the  concerns  of  the  nations  which  surround  us.  It  is 
upon  a  just  balance  of  conflicting  duties,  and  of  rival,  but  some- 
times incompatible,  advantages,  that  a  government  must  judge 
when  to  put  forth  its  strength,  and  when  to  husband  it  for  occa- 
sions yet  to  come. 

Our  ultimate  object  must  be  the  peace  of  the  world.  That 
object  may  sometimes  be  best  attained  by  prompt  exertions — 
sometimes  by  abstinence  from  interposition  in  contests  which  we 
cannot  prevent.  It  is  upon  these  principles  that,  as  has  been  most 
truly  observed  by  my  worthy  friend,  it  did  not  appear  to  the  Go- 
vernment of  this  country  to  be  necessary  that  Great  Britain  should 
mingle  in  the  recent  contest  between  France  and  Spain. 

Your  worthy  Recorder  has  accurately  classed  the  persons  who 
would  have  driven  us  into  that  contest.  There  were  undoubtedly 
among  them  those  who  desired  to  plunge  this  country  into  the 
difficulties  of  war,  partly  from  the  hope  that  those  difficulties 
would  overwhelm  the  Administration;  but  it  would  be  most 
unjust  not  to  admit  that  there  were  others  who  were  actuated  by 
nobler  principles  and  more  generous  feelings,  who  would  have 
rushed  forward  at  once  from  the  sense  of  indignation  at  aggres- 
sion, and  who  deemed  that  no  act  of  injustice  could  be  perpetrated 
from  one  end  of  the  universe  to  the  other,  but  that  the  sword  of 
Great  Britain  should  leap  from  its  scabbard  to  avenge  it.  But  as 
it  is  the  province  of  law  to  control  the  excess  even  of  laudable 
passions  and  propensities  in  individuals,  so  it  is  the  duty  of  Gov- 
ernment to  restrain  within  due  bounds  the  ebullition  of  national 
sentiment,  and  to  regulate  the  course  and  direction  of  impulses 
which  it  cannot  blame.  Is  there  any  one  among  the  latter  class 
of  persons  described  by  my  honourable  friend  (for  to  the  former 
I  have  nothing  to  say,)  who  continues  to  doubt  whether  the  Gov- 
ernment did  wisely  in  declining  to  obey  the  precipitate  enthusi- 
asm which  prevailed  at  the  commencement  of  the  contest  in  Spain  ? 
Is  there  any  body  who  does  not  now  think,  that  it  was  the  office  of 


ELECTION  AND  piNNER  SPEECHES.  537 

Government  to  examine  more  closely  all  the  various  bearings  of  so 
complicated  a  question,  to  consider  whether  they  were  called  upon 
to  assist  a  united  nation,  or  to  plunge  themselves  into  the  internal 
feuds  by  which  that  nation  was  divided — to  aid  in  repelling  a 
foreign  invader,  or,  to  take  part  in  a  civil  war.  Is  there  any  man 
that  does  not  now  see  what  would  have  been  the  extent  of  bur- 
dens that  would  have  been  cast  upon  this  country  ?  Is  there  any 
one  who  does  not  acknowledge  that,  under  such  circumstances  the 
enterprise  would  have  been  one  to  be  characterized  only  by  a 
term  borrowed  from  that  part  of  the  Spanish  literature  with  which 
we  are  most  familiar, — Quixotic;  an  enterprise,  romantic  in  its 
origin,  and  thankless  in  the  end? 

But  while  we  thus  control  even  our  feelings  by  our  duty,  let 
it  not  be  said  that  we  cultivate  peace,  either  because  we  fear,  or 
because  we  are  unprepared  for,  war;  on  the  contrary,  if  eight 
months  ago  the  Government  did  not  hesitate  to  proclaim  that  the 
country  was  prepared  for  war,  if  war  should  be  unfortunately 
necessary,  every  month  of  peace  that  has  since  passed,  has  but 
made  us  so  much  the  more  capable  of  exertion.  The  resources 
created  by  peace  are  means  of  war.  In  cherishing  those  resources, 
we  but  accumulate  those  means.  Our  present  repose  is  no  more 
a  proof  of  inability  to  act,  than  the  state  of  inertness  and  in- 
activity in  which  I  have  seen  those  mighty  masses  that  float 
in  the  waters  above  your  town,  is  a  proof  that  they  are  devoid 
of  strength,  and  incapable  of  being  fitted  out  for  action.  You 
well  know,  gentlemen,  how  soon  one  of  those  stupendous  mas- 
ses, now  reposing  on  their  shadows  in  perfect  stillness, — how 
soon,  upon  any  call  of  patriotism,  or  of  necessity,  it  would 
assume  the  likeness  of  an  animated  thing,  instinct  with  life 
and  motion — how  soon  it  would  ruffle,  as  it  were,  its  swelling 
plumage — how  quickly  it  ivould  put  forth  all  its  beauty  and 
its  bravery,  collect  its  scattered  elements  of  strength,  and 
awaken  its  dormant  thunder.  Such  as  is  one  of  these  magnif- 
icent machines  when  springing  from  inaction  into  a  display 
of  its  might — such  is  England  herself,  while  apparently  pas- 
sive and  motionless  she  silently  concentrates  the  power  to  be 
put  forth  on  an  adequate  occasion.  But  God  forbid  that  that 
occasion  should  arise.  After  a  war  sustained  for  near  a  quarter 
of  a  century — sometimes  single-handed,  and  with  all  Europe  ar- 
ranged at  times  against  her  or  at  her  side,  England  needs  a  period 
of  tranquillity,  and  may  enjoy  it  without  fear  of  misconstruction. 
Long  may  we  be  enabled,  gentlemen,  to  improve  the  blessings  of 
our  present  situation,  to  cultivate  the  arts  of  peace,  to  give  to  com- 
merce, now  reviving,  greater  extension  and  new  spheres  of  em- 
ployment, and  to  confirm  the  prosperity  now  generally  diffused 
throughout  this  island.  Of  the  blessing  of  peace,  gentlemen,  I 
70 


538  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

trust  that  this  borough,  with  which  I  have  now  the  honour  and 
happiness  of  being  associated,  will  receive  an  ample  share.  I  trust 
the  time  is  not  far  distant,  when  that  noble  structure  of  which,  as 
I  learn  from  your  Recorder,  the  box  with  which  you  have  hon- 
oured me,  through  his  hands,  formed  a  part,  that  gigantic  barrier 
against  the  fury  of  the  waves  that  roll  into  your  harbour,  will 
protect  a  commercial  marine  not  less  considerable  in  its  kind,  than 
the  warlike  marine  of  which  your  port  has  been  long  so  distin- 
guished an  asylum,  when  the  town  of  Plymouth  will  participate 
in  the  commercial  prosperity  as  largely  as  it  has  hitherto  done  in 
the  naval  glories  of  England. 


fc-#r 


SPEECH 

AT  THE  DINNER  GIVEN  BY  THE  DIRECTORS  OF  THE  EAST  INDIA  COMPANY, 
TO  SIR  JOHN  MALCOLM,  ON  HIS  APPOINTMENT  TO  THE  PRESIDENCY  OF 
BOMBAY,    ON  THE  13TH  OF  JUNE,   1S27. 

After  the  Chairman  had  proposed  the  health  of  the  Right 
Honourable  George  Canning  and  His  Majesty's  Ministers,  which 
he  prefaced,  by  expressing  his  hope,  that  their  eminent  talents, 
unwearied  zeal,  and  assiduity,  would  earn  for  them  the  highest 
reward — public  gratitude — to  which  their  services  to  the  country 
could  entitle  them,  Mr.  Canning  rose,  amidst  loud  cheers,  which 
lasted  for  some  minutes,  and  spoke  nearly  as  follows: — * 

Mr.  Chairman,  and  Gentlemen, 

On  behalf  of  my  colleagues  and  myself,  whom  you  have  associ- 
ated in  the  toast  now  drank,  allow  me  to  thank  this  company  for 
the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  received.  We  neither  can  deserve 
any  support,  nor  do  we  claim  any,  but  on  the  condition  coupled 
by  the  worthy  Chairman,  with  the  expression  of  his  and  your  kind 
disposition  towards  us,  that  to  the  best  of  our  ability,  we  consult 
and  promote  the  general  welfare  and  happiness  of  the  people. 
Gentlemen,  there  is  no  body  of  men  in  the  country,  from  whom 
such  a  compliment  as  that  you  have  now  bestowed,  could  come 
to  us  with  greater  welcome. 

I  believe  there  is  no  example  in  the  history  of  the  world,  on 
the  one  hand,  of  the  existence  of  an  imperial  corporation,  such  as 
your  Chairman  represents,  or  on  the  other  of  the  concurrence  of 
two  co-ordinate  authorities,  for  so  long  a  series  of  years,  in  con- 
ducting without  shock  or  conflict,  the  administration  of  the  won- 
derful, I  had  almost  said  the  tremendous,  empire,  over  which  the 
East-India  Company  and  the  Crown  jointly  preside. 

Gentlemen,  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  that  vast  empire 
are,  indeed,  as  fearful  as  extraordinary.  It  is  a  disproof  of  the 
common  adage,  that  little  wisdom  is  required  for  governing  man- 
kind, to  consider  how  such  a  machine  has  been  gradually  formed 
— how  a  varied  population  of  nearly  100,000,000  of  souls  is  kept 
together  under  a  government  so  anomalous — and  distant  thou- 
sands of  miles — with  so  much  comparative  happiness,  and  so  little 
of  internal  confusion.     But,  gentlemen,  the  greatness  of  the  con- 

*  This  was  the  last  speech  pronounced  on  any  public  occasion  (out  of  Par- 
liament) by  Mr.  Canning.  It  is  now  published  for  the  first  time,  in  a  corrected 
form. 


540  ELECTION  AND  DINNER  SPEECHES. 

cern  to  be  administered  has  had  its  natural  effect:  it  has  produced 
a  race  of  men  adequate  to  its  administration.  I  venture  to  say, 
that  there  cannot  be  found  in  Europe  any  monarchy,  which  within 
a  given  time  has  produced  so  many  men  of  the  first  talents,  in  civil 
and  military  life,  as  India  has  within  the  same  period,  first  reared 
for  her  own  use,  and  then  given  to  their  native  country. 

Gentlemen,  if  the  compliment  paid  by  you  to  His  Majesty's 
Ministers  be  pleasing  from  the  East  India  Company,  it  is  doubly 
so  on  an  occasion  like  the  present,  when  that  Company,  with  the 
concurrence,  and  full  approbation  of  His  Majesty's  Government, 
is  sending  back  to  India  a  man  whom  you  have  brought  home  for 
a  time,  that  he  might  rest  in  the  career  of  his  honourable  labors, 
and  whom  you  now  restore  to  an  enlarged  sphere  of  activity,  alike 
for  the  advantage  of  your  service  and  the  completion  of  his  own 
reputation.     It  is  perfectly  true,  as  the  gallant  officer  has  himself 
stated,  that,  seven  or  eight  years  ago, — being  then  connected  with 
the  department  of  the  Government  whose  duty  it  is  to  watch  over 
your  affairs, — I  recommended  Sir  John  Malcolm  to  your  notice, 
I  believe,  for  the  very  post  to  which  he  is  now  destined.    I  recom- 
mended him  as  one  of  three  individuals  then  in  your  service,  whose 
respective  merits,  all  eminent  in  an  extraordinary  degree,  were  so 
equally  balanced,  that  it  became  a  task  of  difficulty  to  choose  be- 
tween them — I  speak  of  Mr.  Elphinstone,  Sir  Thomas  Munro,  and 
the  gallant  officer  whose  appointment  we  are  now  met  to  celebrate. 
The  selection  then   made  was  one  rather  of  circumstances,  than 
of  preference.     Sir  John  Malcolm,  I  well  remember,  acquiesced, 
with  a  generous  promptitude,  in  the  advancement  of  his  compet- 
itors, so  worthy  of  him;  and  if  he  has  in  consequence  been  for  a 
while  thrown  behind  them  in  opportunity  of  serving  you,  and 
still  further  distinguishing  himself,  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  will 
speedily  overtake  them  both  in  deeds  and  in  renown. 


APPENDIX. 


SELECTIONS    FROM    THE    WRITINGS    OF    MR.    CANNING. 


THE  SLAVERY  OF  GREECE. 

Unrivaird  Greece  !  thou  ever-honour'd  name, 
Thou  nurse  of  heroes  dear  to  deathless  fame! 
Though  now  to  worth,  to  honour  all  unknown, 
Thy  lustre  faded,  and  thy  glories  flown, 
Yet  still  shall  memory  with  reverted  eye 
Trace  thy  past  worth,  and  view  thee  with  a  sigh. 

Thee  Freedom  cherish'd  once  with  fostering  hand, 
And  breathed  undaunted  valour  through  the  land. 
Here  the  stern  spirit  of  the  Spartan  soil 
The  child  of  poverty  inured  to  toil. 
Here,  loved  by  Pallas  and  the  sacred  nine, 
Once  did  fair  Athens'  towery  glories  shine. 
To  bend  the  bow,  or  the  bright  falchion  wield, 
To  lift  the  bulwark  of  the  brazen  shield, 
To  toss  the  terror  of  the  whizzing  spear, 
The  conquering  standard's  glittering  glories  rear, 
And  join  the  maddening  battle's  loud  career, 
How  skill'd  the  Greeks  ;  confess  what  Persians  slain 
Were  strew'd  on  Marathon's  ensanguined  plain ; 
When  heaps  on  heaps  the  routed  squadrons  fell, 
And  with  their  gaudy  myriads  peopled  hell. 
What  millions  bold  Leonidas  withstood, 
And  seal'd  the  Grecian  freedom  with  his  blood ; 
Witness  Thermopylae !  how  fierce  he  trod, 
How  spoke  a  hero,  and  how  moved  a  god. 
The  rush  of  nations  could  alone  sustain, 
While  half  the  ravaged  globe  was  arm'd  in  vain. 
Let  Leuctra  say,  let  Mantinea  tell, 
How  great  Epaminondas  fought  and  fell ! 

Nor  war's  vast  art  alone  adorn'd  thy  fame 
"  But  mild  philosophy  endear'd  thy  name." 
Who  knows  not,  sees  not,  with  admiring  eye, 
How  Plato  thought,  how  Socrates  could  die  ? 

To  bend  the  arch,  to  bid  the  column  rise, 
And  the  tall  pile  aspiring  pierce  the  skies, 
The  awful  fane;,  magnificently  great, 
With  pictured  pomp  to  grace,  and  sculptured  state, 
This  Science  taught ;  on  Greece  each  science  shone, 
Here  the  bold  statue  started  from  the  stone; 

xx  541 


542  APPENDIX. 

Here  warm  with  life  the  swelling  canvas  glow'd  ; 
Here  big-  with  thought  the  poet's  raptures  flow'd  ; 
Here  Homer's  lip  was  touch'd  with  sacred  fire, 
And  wanton  Sappho  tuned  her  amorous  lyre ; 
Here  bold  Tyrtaeus  roused  the  enervate  throng, 
Awaked  to  glory  by  the  aspiring  song; 
Here  Pindar  soar'd  a  nobler,  loftier  way, 
And  brave  Alcseus  scorn'd  a  tyrant's  sway; 
Here  gorgeous  Tragedy,  with  great  control, 
Touch'd  every  feeling  of  th'  impassion'd  soul; 
While  in  soft  measure  tripping  to  the  song 
Her  comic  sister  lightly  danced  along. — 

This  was  thy  state  !  but  oh  !  how  changed  thy  fame, 
And  all  thy  glories  fading  into  shame  ! 
What !  that  thy  bold,  thy  freedom-breathing  land 
Should  crouch  beneath  a  tyrant's  stern  command  ! 
That  servitude  should  bind  in  galling  chain, 
Whom  Asia's  millions  once  opposed  in  vain ; 
Who  could  have  thought  1  who  sees  without  a  groan 
Thy  cities  mouldering,  and  thy  walls  o'erthrown. 
That  where  once  tower'd  the  stately  solemn  fane, 
Now  moss-grown  ruins  strew  the  ravaged  plain, 
And  unobserved  but  by  the  traveller's  eye, 
Proud,  vaulted  domes  in  fretted  fragments  lie, 
And  the  fallen  column  on  the  dusky  ground 
Pale  ivy  throws  its  sluggish  arms  around. 

Thy  sons  (sad  change  !)  in  abject  bondage  sigh  ; 
Unpitied  toil,  and  unlamented  die  : 
Groan  at  the  labours  of  the  galling  oar, 
Or  the  dark  caverns  of  the  mine  explore. 
The  glittering  tyranny  of  Othman's  sons, 
The  pomp  of  horror  which  surrounds  their  thrones, 
Has  awed  their  servile  spirits  into  fear, 
Spurned  by  the  foot  they  tremble  and  revere. 
The  day  of  labour,  night's  sad  sleepless  hour, 
The  inflictive  scourge  of  arbitrary  power 
The  bloody  terror  of  the  pointed  steel, 
The  murderous  stake,  the  agonizing  wheel, 
And  (dreadful  choice  !)  the  bowstring,  or  the  bowl, 
Damps  their  faint  vigour  and  unmans  the  soul. 
Disastrous  fate  !  still  tears  will  fill  the  eye, 
Still  recollection  prompt  the  mortal  sigh ; 
When  to  the  mind  recurs  thy  former  fame, 
And  all  the  horrors  of  thy  present  shame. 

Some  tall  rock,  whose  bare,  broad  bosom  high 
Towers  from  the  earth,  and  braves  the  inclement  sky  ; 
On  whose  black  top  the  blackening  deluge  pours, 
At  whose  wide  base  the  thundering  ocean  roars ; 
In  conscious  pride  its  huge  gigantic  form 
Surveys  imperious  and  defies  the  storm. 
Till  worn  by  age,  and  mouldering  to  decay, 
The  insidious  waters  wash  its  base  away, 
It  falls,  and  falling  cleaves  the  trembling  gTound, 
And  spreads  the  tempest  of  destruction  round. 


APPENDIX.  543 


FROM  THE  MICROCOSM— 1808. 

Jurare — et  fallere  Kumen. —  Virgil. 
To  swear  and  forswear. 

Nee  sine  ulla  mehercule  ironia  loquor. — Cicero. 
To  speak  ironically. 

"  Having,  in  my  former  paper,  fully,  and  I  hope  satisfactorily,  explained 
the  nature  and  tendency  of  this  work,  and  as  far  as  I  could  foresee  them,  an- 
swered, if  not  obviated,  all  the  objections  most  likely  to  be  started  against  an 
undertaking  of  the  kind,  I  shall  forbear  detaining  my  readers  by  any  farther 
prefatory  observations,  and  proceed  immediately  in  the  execution  of  my  plan; 
premising  only,  that  should  it  appear  to  the  elder  part  of  my  readers,  that  the 
subject  now  before  them  is  too  lightly  treated,  I  would  not  have  them  con- 
clude from  thence,  that  I  am  not  well  aware  of  its  intrinsic  weight  and  im- 
portance. Let  them  however  be  sensible,  that  Gregory  Griffin  does  not,  with 
the  self-assumed  arrogance  of  an  universal  censurer,  commit  to  the  public  these 
his  lucubrations  as  dictatorial  lectures  on  morality,  but  as  the  reflections  of  an 
impartial  observer  of  all  transactions,  principally  indeed  those  of  this  lesser 
world,  of  which  he  boasts  himself  a  citizen.  These,  as  they  afforded  both 
entertainment  and  instruction  to  him  in  their  formation,  he  presumes  to  hope 
may  be  the  source  of  the  one  or  the  other  to  some  of  his  readers.  In  this 
character  I  would  wish  them  to  consider  me  in  the  following  paper,  and  withal 
to  keep  in  their  minds  a  maxim,  indisputable  perhaps  from  the  weight  of  its 
authority, 

Ridiculum  acri 

Fortius  ac  melius  magnas  plerumque  secat  res. 

Where  moral  precepts  fail, 

The  sneer  of  ridicule  will  oft  prevail. 

"  It  has  often  occurred  as  a  matter  of  surprise  to  me  and  a  few  friends,  who 
like  myself,  can  find  pleasure  in  such  speculations  as  arise  more  immediately 
from  common  occurrences,  that  among  the  crowds  of  pretenders  who  profess 
to  teach  every  accomplishment,  necessary  or  unnecessary,  to  form  the  charac- 
ter of  a  complete  gentleman,  no  one  has  as  yet  attempted  to  give  instructions 
in  a  science,  the  use  of  which  is  more  generally  adopted,  by  all  ranks  of  peo- 
ple, than  perhaps  any  other  under  the  sun.  The  reader  will  probably  guess 
that  I  allude  to  the  noble  art  of  swearing. 

"  So  universally,  indeed,  does  this  practice  prevail,  that  it  pervades  all  sta- 
tions and  degrees  of  men,  from  the  peer  to  the  porter,  from  the  minister  to  the 
mechanic.     It  is  the  bond  of  faith,  the  seal  of  protestations  (the  oaths  of  lovers, 
indeed,  are  a  theme  too  trite  to  need  discussion  here),  and  the  universal  suc- 
cedaneum  for  logical  or  even  rational  demonstration.     And  here  I  cannot  for- 
bear reflecting  on  the  infinite  improvements  made  by  moderns  in  the  method 
of  elucidating  and  confirming  all  matters  of  opinion.     A  man  now-a-days  has 
need  but  to  acquire  one  quality,  impudence,  and  to  get  rid  of  a  troublesome 
companion,  conscience,  to  establish  whatever  maxims  he  may  take  in  his 
head.     Let  him  but  confirm  with  an  oath  the  most  improbable  conjectures, 
and  if  any  one  calls  his  honour  in  question,  the  manner  of  settling  all  such 
disputes  is  too  obvious  to  need  explanation.     And  by  these  means  how  much 
unnecessary  trouble  does  he  save  the  rational  talents  of  his  auditors !  what  a 
world  of  useless  investigation  !     Who  can  help  lamenting  that  this  method 
of  arguing  was  not  long  ago  adopted  ?     We  should  then  probably  have  es- 
caped being  pestered  by  the  eternal  disputations  of  that  useless  set  of  creatures, 
called  philosophers  ;  as  any  tolerable  swordsman  mighf.  have  settled  the  uni- 
versal system  according  to  his  own  plan,  and  made  the  planets  move  by  what 
regulations  he  pleased,  provided  he  was  ready,  in  the  Newgate  phrase,  '  to 
swear  through  thick  and  thin.' 


544  APPENDIX. 

'  But  this  is  a  small  part  only  of  the  advantages  attendant  on  the  extensive 
practice  of  this  art.  In  the  councils  of  the  cabinet,  and  the  wranglings  of  the 
bar,  it  adds  weight  to  the  most  striking  arguments,  and  by  its  authority  en- 
forces conviction. 

"  It  is  an  old  proverbial  expression,  that  '  there  go  two  words  to  a  bargain ;' 
now  I  should  not  a  little  admire  the  ingenuity  of  that  calculator  who  could 
define,  to  any  tolerable  degree  of  exactness,  how  many  oaths  go  to  one  in  these 
days;  for  I  am  confident  that  there  is  no  business  carried  on,  from  the  wealth- 
iest bargains  of  the  exchange  to  the  sixpenny  chafferings  of  a  St.  Giles's 
huckster,  in  which  swearing  has  not  a  considerable  share.  And  almost  every 
tradesman,  'meek  and  much  a  liar,'  will,  if  his  veracity  be  called  in  question, 
coolly  consign  to  Satan  some  portion  of  himself,  payable  on  demand,  in  case 
his  goods  be  not  found  answerable  to  his  description  of  their  quality. 

"  I  remember  to  have  heard  of  a  person  of  great  talents  for  inquiry,  who,  to 
inform  himself  whether  the  land  or  the  water  bore  the  greater  proportion  in  the 
globe,  contrived  to  cut  out  with  extreme  nicety  from  a  map  the  different  por- 
tions of  each,  and  by  weighing  them  together  decided  it,  in  favour  of  which 
it  is  not  now  material.  Could  this  experiment  be  made  with  regard  to  the 
proportion  which  oaths  bear  to  the  rest  of  our  modern  conversation,  I  own  I 
am  not  without  my  suspicions,  that  the  former  scale  would  in  some  cases  pre- 
ponderate ;  nay,  certain  I  am,  that  these  harmless  expletives  constitute  consi- 
derably the  weightiest  part  in  the  discourse  of  those  who  either  by  their  own 
ignorant  vanity,  or  the  contemptuous  mock-admiration  of  others,  have  been 
dignified  with  the  title  of  bucks.  And  this  indeed,  as  well  in  that  smaller 
circle  which  falls  more  immediately  under  my  observation,  as  in  the  more  en- 
larged society  of  men  ;  among  whom,  to  a  buck  who  has  the  honour  to  serve 
his  majesty,  a  habit  of  swearing  is  an  appendage  as  absolutely  essential  as  a 
cockade  or  a  commission  :  and  many  a  one  there  is  among  this  order  who 
will  sit  down  with  equal  ardour  and  self-complacency  to  devise  the  cut  of  a 
coat,  or  the  form  of  an  execration. 

"  Nay,  even  the  female  sex  have,  to  their  no  small  credit,  caught  the  happy 
contagion ;  and  there  is  scarce  a  mercer's  wife  in  the  kingdom  but  has  her  in- 
nocent unmeaning  imprecations,  her  little  oaths  'softened  into  nonsense,'  and, 
with  squeaking  treble,  mincing  blasphemy  into  odsbodikins,  slitterkins,  and  such 
like,  will  '  swear  you  like  a  sucking  dove,  ay,  an  it  were  any  nightingale.' 

"  That  it  is  one  of  the  accomplishments  of  boys  is  more  than  sufficiently 
obvious,  when  there  is  scarce  one,  though  he  be  but  five  years  old,  that  does 
not  lisp  out  the  oaths  he  has  heard  drop  from  the  mouths  of  his  elders ;  while 
the  happy  parent  congratulates  himself  on  the  early  improvement  of  his 
offspring,  and  smiles  to  discover  the  promising  seeds  of  manly  wit  in  the 
sprightly  sallies  of  puerile  execration.  On  which  topic  I  remember  to  have 
heard  an  honest  Hibernian  divine,  whose  zeal  for  morality  would  sometimes 
hurry  him  a  little  beyond  the  limits  of  good  grammar  or  good  sense,  in  the 
height  of  declamation  declare,  that  'the  little  children  that  could  neither 
speak  nor  walk  run  about  the  streets  blaspheming.' 

"Thus,  then,  through  all  ranks  and  stages  of  life,  is  swearing  the  very 
hinge  of  conversation !  It  is  the  conclusive  supplement  to  argument,  the 
apology  for  wit,  the  universal  medium  through  which  every  thought  is  con- 
veyed ;  and  as  to  the  violent  passions,  it  is  (to  use  the  words  of  the  poet)  '  the 
very  midwife  of  the  mind  ;'  and  is  equally  serviceable  in  bringing  forth  the 
sensations  of  anger  or  kindness,  hope  or  fear ;  the  ecstacies  of  extravagant 
delight,  or  the  agonies  of  comfortless  despair.  What  mortal  among  us  is 
there,  that  when  any  misfortune  comes  on  him  unexpectedly,  does  not  find 
himself  wonderfully  lightened  of  the  load  of  his  sorrow,  by  pouring  out  the 
abundance  of  his  vexation  in  showers  of  curses  on  the  author  of  his  calamity  ] 
What  gamester,  who  has  reduced  himself  from  opulence  to  beggary,  by  the 
intemperate  indulgence  of  a  mad  infatuation,  does  not,  after  sitting  down  and 


APPENDIX.  545 

venting  his  execrations  for  half  an  hour  against  his  ill  fortune  and  his  folly, 
get  up  again  greatly  relieved  by  so  happy  an  expedient  ? 

"  Since,  then,  the  advantages  arising  from  an  early  initiation  into  the  prac- 
tice of  swearing  must  so  evidently  appear  to  every  person  unprejudiced  against 
it  by  notions  (now  indeed  almost  out  of  date)  of  religion  and  morality,  I  can- 
not but  be  surprised,  that  no  one  has  yet  attempted  to  reduce  to  system,  and 
teach  the  theory  of  an  art,  the  practical  part  of  which  is  so  universally  known 
and  adopted.  An  undertaking  of  this  kind  could  not  surely  fail  of  success ; 
especially  in  an  age  like  this,  when  attempts  of  a  much  more  arduous  nature 
are  every  day  presented  to  our  notice  ;  when  pigs  are  brought  to  exercise  all 
the  functions  of  rationality  ;  and  Hibernians  profess  to  teach  the  true  pronun- 
ciation of  the  English  tongue. 

"  It  is  not  so  very  far  removed,  but  that  some  of  my  readers  must  recollect 
the  time  when  the  noble  art  of  boxing  was,  by  the  ever-memorable  Figg  and 
Broughton,  reduced  to  a  complete  and  perfect  system ;  and  the  nobility  and 
gentry  were  taught,  theoretically  as  well  as  practically,  to  bruise  the  bodies, 
and  (to  use  a  technical  term)  darken  the  day-lights  of  each  other  with  the 
vigour  of  a  Hercules,  tempered  with  the  grace  of  an  Apollo.  And  it  is  but  a 
little  time  since  a  celebrated  foreigner  actually  instructed  some  persons  of  no 
inconsiderable  rank  of  both  sexes  in  the  art  of  eating  soup  with  ease  and  dex- 
teTity,  (though,  in  my  humble  opinion,  few  people  could  need  a  preceptor  to 
show  them  the  way  to  their  mouths.)  Of  much  more  utility,  and  surely  not 
less  successful,  would  be  the  plan  I  recommend.  Many  there  were,  who 
from  tenderness  of  age,  or  delicacy  of  constitution,  were  precluded  from  the 
diversion  of  boxing  :  to  many  the  science  of  soup-eating  was  useless  and  im- 
practicable— merely  from  having  none  to  eat ;  but  all  have  their  oaths  in  their 
own  power,  and  of  them,  neither  emptiness  of  pocket,  nor  corporeal  or  menta! 
imbecility,  prevents  the  free  and  uncontrolled  use;  and  almost  everybody, 
however  niggardly  he  may  be  in  parting  with  any  other  of  his  possessions, 
scatters  these  with  the  most  liberal  profusion. 

"  Thus  then,  if  fostered  by  the  hand  of  a  skilful  linguist,  this  science  might 
perhaps  in  time  come  nearer  than  any  other  to  realize  the  extravagant  idea  of 
the  ingenious  but  romantic  Bishop  Wilkins,  of  an  universal  language.  At 
present,  indeed,  there  are  some  slight  inconveniences  attending  the  project, 
among  which  no  small  one  is,  that  according  to  their  present  general  usage, 
oaths,  like  Yorick's  French  friseur,  by  expressing  too  much,  generally  mean 
nothing  ;  insomuch  that  I  now  make  it  a  rule  to  lessen  my  belief  to  every  as- 
sertion, in  proportion  to  the  number  of  needless  corroborative  oaths  by  which  it 
is  supported.  Nor  am  I  indeed  unreasonable  in  this  ;  and  in  most  cases  how 
can  I  do  otherwise  1  Is  it  in  human  nature  to  suppose,  that  when  one  of  my 
friends  declares  his  joy  at  seeing  me,  and  his  kind  concern  for  my  health,  by 
intimating  a  hearty  wish  of  my  eternal  perdition,  that  he  really  means  what 
he  says  ? 

"  It  has  been  observed  by  some  ancient  philosopher,  or  poet,  or  moralist, 
(no  matter  which,)  that  nothing  could  be  more  pernicious  to  mankind  than  the 
fulfilling  of  their  own  wishes.  And  in  truth  1  am  inclined  to  be  of  his  opi- 
nion :  for  many  a  friend  of  mine,  many  a  fellow-citizen  of  this  lesser  world, 
would,  had  his  own  heedless  imprecations  on  himself  taken  effect,  long  ere 
this  have  groaned  under  the  complication  of  almost  every  calamity  capable  of 
entering  a  human  imagination.  And  with  regard  to  the  world  at  large,  were 
this  to  be  the  case,  I  doubt  whether  there  would  be  at  this  present  time  a  leg 
or  limb  of  any  kind  whole  in  his  majesty's  service.  So  habitual  indeed  was 
this  custom  become  to  an  officer  of  my  acquaintance,  that  though  he  had  lost 
one  of  his  eyes  in  the  defence  of  his  country,  he  could  not  forego  his  favourite 
execration,  but  still  used  to  vent  his  curses  on  them  both,  with  the  same  ease 
and  indifference  as  when  they  were  both  in  his  possession  :  so  blind  was  he 
rendered  to  his  own  defects  by  the  continued  practice  of  this — amusement; 
71 


546  APPENDIX. 

for  in  no  other  light  than  as  an  amusement  or  a  polite  accomplishment  can  it 
be  considered  by  those  who  practise  it.  Did  they  consider  it  as  a  vice,  they 
could  not,  I  am  sure,  persevere  in  the  indulgence  of  one  which  has  not  even 
the  common  excuse  of  having  for  its  aim  the  pursuit  of  pleasure  or  the  gratifi- 
cation of  a  darling  appetite.  I  cannot  believe  they  would  so  disinterestedly 
damn  themselves,  and  vent  in  public  company  such  imprecations  as  in  dark- 
ness and  solitude  they  would  tremble  to  conceive. 

"  As  an  accomplishment,  therefore,  and  as  an  agreeable  indication  of  youth- 
ful gayety,  it  must  no  doubt  be  considered  ;  and  should  any  one  take  the  hint 
here  offered  him,  and  commence  instructer  in  this  noble  science,  I  need  not,  I 
believe,  caution  him  against  being  an  Englishman;  or  (should  he  have  the 
misfortune  to  be  born  in  this  country)  remind  him  of  the  easy  transformation 
of  our  commonest  homespun  names  into  the  more  fashionable  French  or  more 
musical  Italian ;  as,  for  instance,  that  of  Peters  into  Pedro,  Nichols  into 
Nicolini,  or  Gerard  into  Geradot,  and  so  on.  Having  thus  un-Englished  him- 
self, let  him  get  his  advertisement  drawn  up  in  the  Grahamic  style,  if  not  by 
the  doctor  himself,  professing  that,— 

"  Having  added  to  the  early  advantages  of  a  Billingsgate  education,  the 
deepest  researches,  and  most  indefatigable  industry,  &c.  &c.  he  now  stands 
forth  as  an  apt  and  accomplished  teacher  of  the  never-to-be-sufficiently-extol- 
led,  the  all-expressive,  all-comprehensive,  &c.  &c.  art  of  Swearing.  Ladies 
and  gentlemen  instructed  in  the  most  fashionable  and  elegant  oaths  ;  the  most 
peculiarly  adapted  to  their  several  ages,  manners,  and  professions,  &c.  &c. 
He  has  now  ready  for  the  press  a  book  entitled  '  The  Complete  Oath  Regis- 
ter, or  Every  Man  his  own  Swearer,'  containing  oaths  and  imprecations  for 
all  times,  seasons,  purposes,  and  occasions.  Also  '  Sentimental  Oaths  for  the 
Ladies.'     Likewise,  '  Execrations  for  the  year  1786.' 

"Let  him  I  say  do  this,  and  he  may,  I  believe,  assure  himself  of  no  little 
encouragement  among  the  world  at  large ;  though  far  be  it  from  me  to  pre- 
sume to  promise  him  any  extraordinary  countenance  in  that  smaller  circle 
which  comes  more  immediately  under  the  inspection  of  the  Microcosmopolitan." 


FROM     THE    ANTI-JACOBIN    EXAMINER. 

NEW  MORALITY. 

From  mental  mists  to  purge  a  nation's  eyes ; 
To  animate  the  weak,  unite  the  wise ; 
To  trace  the  deep  infection  that  pervades 
The  crowded  town,  and  taints  the  rural  shades ; 
To  mark  how  wide  extends  the  mighty  waste 
O'er  the  fair  realms  of  science,  learning,  taste  ; 
To  drive  and  scatter  all  the  brood  of  lies, 
And  chase  the  varying  falsehood  as  it  flies  ; 
The  long  arrears  of  ridicule  to  pay, 
To  drag  reluctant  Dulness  back  to  day ; 
Much  yet  remains. — To  you  these  themes  belong, 
Ye  favour'd  sons  of  virtue  and  of  song  ! 

Say,  is  the  field  too  narrow  1     Are  the  times 
Barren  of  folly,  and  devoid  of  crimes? 

Yet,  venial  vices,  in  a  milder  age, 
Gould  rouse  the  warmth  of  Pope's  satiric  rage  ; 
The  doting  miser,  and  the  lavish  heir, 
The  follies  and  the  foibles  of  the  fair, 


APPENDIX.  547 

Sir  Job,  Sir  Balaam,  and  old  Euclio's  thrift, 
And  Sappho's  diamonds  with  her  dirty  shift, 
Blunt,  Charteris,  Hopkins, — meaner  subjects  fired 
The  keen-eyed  poet;  while  the  muse  inspired 
Her  ardent  child, — entwining,  as  he  sate, 
His  laurelled  chaplet  with  the  thorns  of  hate. 

But  say, — indignant  does  the  muse  retire, 
Her  shrine  deserted,  and  extinct  its  fire  1 
No  pious  hand  to  feed  the  sacred  flame, 
No  raptured  soul  a  poet's  charge  to  claim  1 

Bethink  thee,  Gifford  ;  when  some  future  age 
Shall  trace  the  promise  of  thy  playful  page  ; — 
"The  hand  which  brush'd  a  swarm  of  fools  away* 
Should  rouse  to  grasp  a  more  reluctant  prey  !' 
Think  then,  will  pleaded  indolence  excuse 
The  tame  secession  of  thy  languid  Muse  1 

Ah  !  where  is  now  that  promise  ?  why  so  long 
Sleep  the  keen  shafts  of  satire  and  of  song  1 
Oh  !  come,  with  Taste  and  Virtue  at  thy  side, 
With  ardent  zeal  inflamed,  and  patriot  pride ; 
With  keen  poetic  glance  direct  the  blow, 
And  empty  all  thy  quiver  on  the  foe  : — 
No  pause — no  rest — till  weltering  on  the  ground 
The  poisonous  hydra  lies,  and  pierced  with  many  a  wound. 

Thou  too  ! — the  nameless  bard,f  whose  honest  zeal 
For  law,  for  morals,  for  the  public  weal, 
Pours  down  impetuous  on  thy  country's  foes 
The  stream  of  verse,  and  many-languaged  prose  ; 
Thou  too  ! — thougli  oft  thy  ill-advised  dislike 
The  guiltless  head  with  random  censure  strike, — 
Though  quaint  allusions,  vague  and  undefined, 
Play  faintly  round  the  ear,  but  mock  the  mind  ; 
Through  the  mix'd  mass  yet  truth  and  learning  shine, 
And  manly  vigour  stamps  the  nervous  line : 
And  patriot  warmth  the  generous  rage  inspires, 
And  wakes  and  points  the  desultory  fires  ! 

Yet  more  remain  unknown  :  for  who  can  tell 
What  bashful  genius,  in  some  rural  cell, 
As  year  to  year,  and  day  succeeds  to  day, 
In  joyless  leisure  wastes  his  life  away  1 
In  him  the  flame  of  early  fancy  shone  ; 
His  genuine  worth  his  old  companions  own ; 
In  childhood  and  in  youth  their  chief  confess'd, 
His  master's  pride,  his  pattern  to  the  rest. 
Now,  far  aloof  retiring  from  the  strife 
Of  busy  talents,  and  of  active  life, 
As,  from  the  loop-holes  of  retreat,  he  views 
Our  stage,  verse,  pamphlets,  politics,  and  news, 

*  See  the  motto  prefixed  to  "The  Baviad,"  a  satirical  poem,  by  W.  Giflbrd,  Esq. ;  un- 
questionably the  best  of  its  kind,  since  the  days  of  Pope. 

Nunc  in  ovilia 

Mox  in  reluctantes  dracones. 

t  The  author  of  "  The  Pursuits  of  Literature." 


548  APPENDIX. 

He  loathes  the  world, — or  with  reflection  sad 
Concludes  it  irrecoverably  mad  ; 
Of  taste,  of  learning,  morals,  all  bereft, 
No  hope,  no  prospect  to  redeem  it  left. 

Awake  !  for  shame  ;  or  ere  thy  noble  sense 
Sink  in  the  oblivious  pool  of  indolence ! 
Must  wit  be  found  alone  on  falsehood's  side, 
Unknown  to  truth,  to  virtue  unallied  ] 
Arise  !  nor  scorn  thy  country's  just  alarms  ; 
Wield  in  her  cause  thy  long  neglected  arms  ; 
Of  lofty  satire  pour  th'  indignant  strain, 
Leagued  with  her  friends,  and  ardent  to  maintain 
'Gainst  learning's,  virtue's,  truth's,  religion's  foes, 
A  kingdom's  safety,  and  the  world's  repose. 

If  vice  appal  thee, — if  thou  view  with  awe 
Insults  that  brave,  and  crimes  that  'scape  the  law ; 
Yet  may  the  specious  bastard  brood,  which  claim 
A  spurious  homage  under  virtue's  name, 
Sprung  from  that  parent  of  ten  thousand  crimes, 
The  New  Philosophy  of  modern  times, 
Yet  these  may  rouse  thee  !     With  unsparing  hand 
Oh  lash  the  vile  impostures  from  the  land  ! 

First,  stern  Philanthropy  : — not  she  who  dries 
The  orphan's  tears,  and  wipes  the  widow's  eyes ; 
Not  she,  who,  sainted  Charity  her  guide, 
Of  British  bounty  pours  the  annual  tide  : — 
But  French  Philanthropy  ; — whose  boundless  mind 
Glows  with  the  general  love  of  all  mankind  ; 
Philanthropy, — beneath  whose  baneful  sway 
Each  patriot  passion  sinks  and  dies  away. 

Taught  in  her  school  t'  imbibe  thy  mawkish  strain, 
Condorcet,  filter'd  through  the  dregs  of  Paine, 
Each  pert  adept  disowns  a  Briton's  part, 
And  plucks  the  name  of  England  from  his  heart. 

What !  shall  a  name,  a  word,  a  sound  control 
Th'  aspiring  thought,  and  cramp  th'  expansive  soul  ? 
Shall  one  half-peopled  island's  rocky  roun " 
A  love  that  glows  for  all  creation  bound  ? 
And  social  charities  contract  the  plan 
Framed  for  thy  freedom,  universal  man  ? 
No — through  th'  extended  globe  his  feelings  run, 
As  broad  and  general  as  th'  unbounded  sun  ! 
No  narrow  bigot  he  ;  his  reason'd  view 
Thy  interests,  England,  ranks  with  thine,  Peru ! 
France  at  our  doors,  he  sees  no  dpnger  nigh, 
But  heaves  for  Turkey's  woes  th'  .mpartial  sigh  ; 
A  steady  patriot  of  the  world  alone, 
The  friend  of  every  country — but  his  own. 

Next  comes  a  gentler  virtue. — Ah  !  beware 
Lest  the  harsh  verse  her  shrinking  softness  scare. 
Visit  her  not  too  roughly  ; — the  warm  sigh 
Breathes  on  her  lips; — the  tear-drop  gems  her  eye. 


APPENDIX.  549 

Sweet  Sensibility,  who  dwells  enshrined 

In  the  fine  foldings  of  the  feeling  mind  ; 

With  delicate  mimosa's  sense  endued, 

Who  shrinks  instinctive  from  a  hand  too  rude  ; 

Or  like  the  anagallis,  prescient  flower, 

Shuts  her  soft  petals  at  th'  approaching  shower. 

Sweet  child  of  sickly  Fancy  ! — Her  of  yore 
From  her  loved  France  Rousseau  to  exile  bore  ; 
And,  while  midst  lakes  and  mountains  wild  he  ran, 
Full  of  himself,  and  shunn'd  the  haunts  of  man, 
Taught  her  o'er  each  lone  vale  and  Alpine  steep 
To  lisp  the  story  of  his  wrongs,  and  weep  ; 
Taught  her  to  cherish  still,  in  either  eye, 
Of  tender  tears  a  plentiful  supply, 
And  pour  them  in  the  brooks  that  babbled  by  ; 
Taught  by  nice  scale  to  mete  her  feelings  strong, 
False  by  degrees,  and  exquisitely  wrong; 
For  the  crush'd  beetle,  first,  the  widow'd  dove, 
And  all  the  warbled  sorrows  of  the  grove; 
Next  for  poor  suffering  guilt ;  and,  last  of  all, 
For  parents,  friends,  a  king  and  country's  fall. 

Mark  her  fair  votaries,  prodigal  of  grief, 
With  cureless  pangs,  and  woes  that  mock  relief, 
Droop  in  soft  sorrow  o'er  a  faded  flower ; 
O'er  a  dead  jack-ass  pour  the  pearly  shower  : 
But  hear,  unmoved,  of  Loire's  ensanguined  flood, 
Choked  up  with  slain;  of  Lyons  drench'd  in  blood  ; 
Of  crimes  that  blot  the  age,  the  world,  with  shame, 
Foul  crimes,  but  sicklied  o'er  with  Freedom's  name  ; 
Altars  and  thrones  subverted,  social  life 
Trampled  to  earth, — the  husband  from  the  wife, 
Parent  from  child,  with  ruthless  fury  torn, — 
Of  talents,  honour,  virtue,  wit,  forlorn, 
In  friendless  exile, — of  the  wise  and  good 
Staining  the  daily  scaffold  with  their  blood, 
Of  savage  cruelties,  that  scare  the  mind, 
The  rage  of  madness  with  hell's  lusts  combined — 
Of  hearts  torn  reeking  from  the  mangled  breast,— 
They  hear — and  hope  that  all  is  for  the  best. 

Fond  hope  !  but  Justice  sanctifies  the  prayer — 
Justice  ! — Here,  Satire,  strike  ;  'twere  sin  to  spare  ! 
Not  she  in  British  courts  that  takes  her  stand, 
The  dawdling  balance  dangling  in  her  hand, 
Adjusting  punishments  to  fraud  and  vice, 
With  scrupulous  quirks,  and  disquisition  nice  : 
But  firm,  erect,  with  keen  reverted  glance, 
Th'  avenging  angel  of  regenerate  France, 
Who  visits  ancient  sins  on  modern  times, 
And  punishes  the  Pope  for  Caesar's  crimes.* 

Such  is  the  liberal  Justice  which  presides 
In  these  our  days,  and  modern  patriots  guides ; 


*  The  manes  of  Vernengotorix  are  supposed  to  have  been  very  mur-h  gratified  by  the  inva- 
sion of  Italy  and  the  plunder  of  the  Roman  territory.  The  defeat  of  the  Burgundians  is  to  be 
revenged  on  the  modem  inhabitants  oLSwitzcrland.  But  the  Swiss  were  a  free  people, 
defending  their  liberliet  against  a  tyrant.     Moreover,  they  happened  to  be  in  alliance  with 


550  APPENDIX. 

Justice,  whose  blood-stain'd  book  one  sole  decree, 

One  statute  fills — "The  people  shall  be  free." 

Free  by  what  means  1  by  folly,  madness,  guilt, 

By  boundless  rapines,  blood  in  oceans  spilt ; 

By  confiscation,  in  whose  sweeping  toils 

The  poor  man's  pittance  with  the  rich  man's  spoils, 

Mix'd  in  one  common  mass,  are  swept  away, 

To  glut  the  short-lived  tyrant  of  the  day  ; — 

By  laws,  religion,  morals  all  o'erthrown  : — 

— Rouse  then,  ye  sovereign  people,  claim  your  own ; — 

The  license  that  enthrals,  the  truth  that  blinds, 

The  wealth  that  starves  you,  and  the  power  that  grinds. 

— So  Justice  bids. — 'Twas  her  enlighten'd  doom, 

Louis,  thy  holy  head  devoted  to  the  tomb  ! 

'Twas  Justice  claim'd,  in  that  accursed  hour, 

The  fatal  forfeit  of  too  lenient  power. 

— Mourn  for  the  man  we  may  ; — but  for  the  king, — 

Freedom,  oh  !  Freedom's  such  a  charming  thing  ! 

"Much  may  be  said  on  both  sides." — Hark  !  I  hear 
A  well-known  voice  that  murmurs  in  my  ear, — 
The  voice  of  Candour. — Hail !  most  solemn  sage, 
Thou  driveling  virtue  of  this  moral  age, 
Candour,  which  softens  party's  headlong  rage  ; 
Candour, — which  spares  its  foes  ; — nor  e'er  descends 
With  bigot  zeal  to  combat  for  its  friends. 
Candour, — which  loves  in  see-saw  strain  to  tell 
Of  acting  foolishly,  but  meaning  well ; 
Too  nice  to  praise  by  wholesale,  or  to  blame 
Convinced  that  all  men's  motives  are  the  same  ; — 
And  finds,  with  keen  discriminating  sight, 
Black's  not  so  black  ;  nor  white  so  very  white. 

"  Fox,  to  be  sure,  was  vehement  and  wrong  : 
But  then  Pitt's  words,  you'll  own,  were  rather  strong. 
Both  must  be  blamed,  both  pardon'd ; — 'twas  just  so 
With  Fox  and  Pitt  full  forty  years  ago  ; 
So  Walpole,  Pulteney  ; — factions  in  all  times 
Have  had  their  follies,  ministers  their  crimes." 

Give  me  th'  avow'd,  the  erect,  the  manly  foe, 
Bold  I  can  meet, — perhaps  may  turn  his  blow  ; 
But  of  all  plagues,  good  Heaven,  thy  wrath  can  send, 
Save,  save,  oh !  save  me  from  the  candid  friend  ! 

"  Barras  loves  plunder, — Merlin  takes  a  bribe, — 
What  then  ? — Shall  Candour  these  good  men  proscribe  ? 
No  !  ere  we  join  the  loud-accusing  throng, 
Prove, — not  the  facts,  but,  that  they  thought  them  wrong. 

"Why  hang  O'Quigley  1 — he,  misguided  man, 
In  sober  thought  his  country's  weal  might  plan. 
And,  while  his  deep-wrought  treason  sapped  the  throne, 
Might  act  from  taste  in  morals,  all  his  own." 

France  at  the  time.  No  matter,  Burgundy  is  since  become  a  province  of  France,  and  the 
French  have  acquired  a  property  in  all  the  injuries  and  defeats  which  the  people  of  that 
country  may  have  sustained,  together  with  a  title  to  revenge  and  retaliation,  to  be  exercised 
in  the  present,  or  any  future  centuries,  as  may  be  found  most  glorious  and  convenient 


APPENDIX.  551 

Peace  to  such  reasoners  !  let  them  have  their  way  ; 
Shut  their  dull  eyes  against  the  blaze  of  day. 
Priestley's  a  saint,  and  Stone  a  patriot  still ; 
And  La  Fayette  a  hero,  if  they  will. 

I  love  the  hold  uncompromising  mind, 
Whose  principles  are  fix'd,  whose  views  defined : 
Who  scouts  and  scorns,  in  canting  Candour's  spite, 
All  taste  in  morals,  innate  sense  of  right, 
And  nature's  impulse,  all  uncheck'd  by  art, 
And  feelings  fine,  that  float  about  the  heart : 
Content,  for  good  men's  guidance,  bad  men's  awe, 
On  moral  truth  to  rest,  and  gospel  law. 
Who  owns,  when  traitors  feel  th'  avenging  rod, 
Just  retribution,  and  the  hand  of  God  ; 
Who  hears  the  groans  through  Olmutz'  roofs  that  ring, 
Of  him  who  mock'd,  misled,  betray'd  his  king — 
Hears  unappall'd  : — though  faction's  zealots  preach — 
Unmoved,  unsoften'd  by  F*tzp*tr*ck's  speech 

That  speech  on  which  the  melting  commons  hung,* 
"  While  truths  divine  came  mended  from  his  tongue" — 
How  loving  husband  clings  to  duteous  wife, — 
How  pure  religion  soothes  the  ills  of  life, — 
How  popish  ladies  trust  their  pious  fears 
And  naughty  actions  in  their  chaplain's  ears. 
Half  novel  and  half  sermon,  on  it  flow'd  ; 
With  pious  zeal  the  opposition  glow'd  ; 
As  o'er  each  the  soft  infection  crept, 
Sigh'd  as  he  whined,  and  as  he  whimper'd  wept ; 
E'en  C**w*n  dropt  a  sentimental  tear, 
And  stout  St.  A*dr*w  yelp'd  a  softer  "  hear!" 


O  !  nurse  of  crimes  and  fashions  !  which  in  vain 
Our  colder  servile  spirits  would  attain, 
How  do  we  ape  thee,  France  !  but  blundering  still 
Disgrace  the  pattern  by  our  want  of  skill. 
The  borrow'd  step  our  awkward  gait  reveals  : 
(As  clumsy  C**rtn*yf  mars  the  verse  he  steals.) 


*  The  speech  of  General  F-tzp-tr-ck,  on  his  motion  for  an  address  of  the  house  of  com- 
mons to  the  emperor  of  Germany,  to  demand  the  deliverance  of  M.  La  Fayette  from  the 
prison  of  Olmutz,  was  one  of  the  most  dainty  pieces  of  oratory  that  ever  drew  tears  from  a 
crowded  gallery,  and  the  clerks  at  the  tabli  .  It  was  really  cjinte  moving  to  hear  the  gene- 
ral talk  of  religion,  conjugal  fidelity,  and  "such  branches  of  learning."  There  were  a  few 
who  laughed  indeed,  but  that  was  thought  hard-hearted  and  immoral,  and  irreligious,  and 
God  knows  what.  Crying  was  the  order  of  the  day.  Why  wdl  not  the  opposition  try 
these  topics  again  ?  La  Fayette  indeed  (the  more's  the  pity)  is  out.  But  why  not  a  motion 
for  a  general  jail-delivery  of  all  state  prisoner-  throughout  Europe? 

+  See  Anti-Jacobin,  vol.  1.  p.  •i~t'>,  in  the  note,  for  a  theft  more  shameless,  and  an  applica- 
tion of  the  thing  stolen  more  stupid,  than  any  of  those  recorded  of  Irish  story-tellers  by  Joe 
Miller. 

The  following  is  the  note  alluded  to.  It  illustrates  the  words  "Courtney's  kidnapped 
rhymes,"  in  a  severe  reply  "  to  the  author  of  the  Kpistle  to  the  editors  of  the  Anti-Jacol>in,' 
which  epistle  appeared  in  the  Morning  I  Ihronicle. 

"This  is  a  serious  charge  against  an  author,  and  ought  to  be  well  supported.  To  the 
proof,  then ! 


552  APPENDIX. 

How  do  we  ape  thee,  France !  nor  claim  alone 

Thy  arts,  thy  tastes,  thy  morals  for  our  own, 

But  to  thy  worthies  render  homage  due, 

Their*  "  hair-breadth  'scapes"  with  anxious  interest  view ; 

Statesmen  and  heroines  whom  this  age  adores, 

Though  plainer  times  would  call  them  rogues  and  whores. 

See  Louvet,  patriot,  pamphleteer,  and  sage, 
Tempering  with  amorous  fire  his  virtuous  rage. 
Form'd  for  all  tasks,  his  various  talents  see, 
The  luscious  novel,  the  severe  decree. 
Then  mark  him  weltering  in  his  nasty  stye, 
Bare  his  lewd  transports  to  the  public  eye. 
Not  his  the  love  in  silent  groves  that  strays, 
Quits  the  rude  world,  and  shuns  the  vulgar  gaze. 
In  Lodoiska's  full  possession  blest, 
One  craving  void  still  aches  within  his  breast ; 
Plunged  in  the  filth  and  fondness  of  her  arms. 
Not  to  himself  alone  he  stints  her  charms  ; 
Clasp'd  in  each  other's  foul  embrace  they  lie, 
But  know  no  joy  unless  the  world  stands  by. 
The  fool  of  vanity,  for  her  alone 
He  lives,  loves,  writes,  and  dies,  but  to  be  known. 

His  widow'd  mourner  flies  to  poison's  aid, 
Eager  to  join  her  Louvet's  parted  shade 
In  those  bright  realms  where  sainted  lovers  stray 
But  harsh  emetics  tear  that  hope  away.t 
Yet,  hapless  Louvet !  where  thy  bones  are  laid, 
The  easy  nymphs  shall  consecrate  the  shade.:): 

"In  an  Ode  of  the  late  Lord  Nugent's  are  the  following  spirited  lines:— 

'  Though  Cato  lived — though  Tully  spoke- 
Though  Brutus  dealt  the  godlike  stroke, 
Yet  perish'd  fated  Rome  !' 
"  The  author  above-mentioned  saw  these  lines,  and  liked  them — as  well  he  might :  and 
as  he  had  a  mind  to  write  about  Rome  himself,  he  did  not  scruple  to  enlist  them  into  his 
service  ;  but  he  thought  it  right  to  make  a  small  alteration  in  their  appearance,  which  he 
managed  thus : — Speaking  of  Rome,  he  says  it  is  the  place 

'  Where  Cato  lived.' 

"  A  sober  truth  :  which  gets  rid  at  once  of  all  the  poetry  and  spirit  of  the  original,  and 
reduces  the  sentiment  from  an  example  of  manners,  virtue,  patriotism,  from  the  vitce  exem- 
pla  dedit  of  Lord  Nugent,  to  a  mere  question  of  inhabitancy.  Ubi  habitavil  Cato — where  he 
was  an  inhabitant  householder,  paying  scot  and  lot,  and  had  a  house  on  the  right-hand  side 
of  the  way,  as  you  go  down  Esquiline  Hill,  just  opposite  to  the  poulterer's. — But  to  proceed — 

'  Where  Cato  lived ;  where  Tully  spoke, 
Where  Brutus  dealt  the  godlike  stroke — 
By  which  his  glory  rose .'.'.'' 

"  The  last  line  is  not  borrowed. 

"  We  question  whether  the  history  of  modern  literature  can  produce  an  instance  of  a 
theft  so  shameless,  and  turned  to  so  little  advantage." 

*  See  Recit  de  mes  Perils,  by  Louvet.  Memoires  d'un  Detenu,  by  Riouffe,  &c.  The 
avidity  with  which  these  productions  were  read,  might,  we  should  hope,  be  accounted  for 
upon  principles  of  mere  curiosity,  (as  we  read  the  Newgate  Calendar  and  the  History  of  the 
Buccaneers,)  not  from  any  interest  in  favour  of  a  set  of  wretches  infinitely  more  detestable 
than  all  the  robbers  and  pirates  that  ever  existed. 

t  Every  lover  of  modern  French  literature,  and  admirer  of  modern  French  characters, 
must  remember  the  rout  which  was  made  about  Louvet's  death  and  Lodoiska's  poison 
The  attempt  at  self-slaughter,  and  the  process  of  the  recovery,  the  arsenic  and  the  castor  oil 
were  served  up  in  daily  messes  from  the  French  papers,  till  the  public  absolutely  sickened 

1  Faciles  Napere. 


APPENDIX.  553 

There,  in  the  laughing  morn  of  genial  spring, 
Unwedded  pairs  shall  tender  couplets  sing; 
Eringoes  o'er  the  hallow'd  spot  shall  bloom, 
And  flies  of  Spain  buzz  softly  round  the  tomb.* 

But  hold  !  severer  virtue  claims  the  Muse — 
Roland  the  just,  with  ribands  in  his  shoes — f 
And  Roland's  spouse,  who  paints  with  chaste  delight 
The  doubtful  conflict  of  her  nuptial  night ; 
Her  virgin  charms  what  fierce  attacks  assail'd, 
And  how  the  rigid  minister:}:  prevailed. 

And  ah  !  what  verse  can  grace  thy  stately  mien, 
Guide  of  the  world,  Preferment's  golden  queen, 
Neckar's  fair  daughter, — Stael  the  epicene  ! 
Bright  o'er  whose  flaming  cheek  and  pumple§  nose 
The  bloom  of  young  desire  unceasing  glows ! 
Fain  would  the  muse — but  ah !  she  dares  no  more ; 
A  mournful  voice  from  lone  Guyana's  shore|| 
— Sad  Quatremere — the  bold  presumption  checks, 
Forbid  to  question  thy  ambiguous  sex. 

To  thee  proud  Barras  bows  ;  thy  charms  control 
Rewbell's  brute  rage,  and  Merlin's  subtle  soul ; 
Raised  by  thy  hands,  and  fashioned  to  thy  will, 
Thy  power,  thy  guiding  influence  governs  still, 
Where  at  the  blood-stain'd  board  expert  he  plies, 
The  lame  artificer  of  fraud  and  lies  ; 
He  with  the  mitred  head  and  cloven  heel : 
Doom'd  the  coarse  edge  of  Rewbell's  jests  to  feel  ;tf 
To  stand  the  playful  buffet,  and  to  hear 
The  frequent  inkstand  whizzing  past  his  ear ; 
While  all  the  five  directors  laugh  to  see 
"  The  limping  priest  so  deft  at  his  new  ministry."** 

Last  of  th'  anointed  five  behold,  and  least, 
The  directorial  lama,  sovereign  priest, — 
Lepaux  : — whom  atheists  worship  ; — at  whose  nod 
Bow  their  meek  heads  the  men  without  a  god.ff 


*  See  Anthologia  passim. 

t  Such  was  the  strictness  of  this  minister's  principles,  that  he  positively  refused  to  go  to 
court  in  shoe-buckles.— See  Dumourier's  Memoirs. 

t  See  Madame  Roland's  Memoirs—"  Rigide  Ministre,"  Brissot  a  ses  Commetans. 

§  The  "  pumple"-nosed  attorney  of  Furnival's  Inn.— Congreve's  Way  of  the  World. 

||  These  lines  contain  the  secret  history  of  Quatremere 's  deportation.  He  presumed  in 
the  council  of  Five  Hundred  to  arraign  Madame  de  Stael's  conduct,  and  even  to  hint  a 
doubt  of  her  sex.  He  was  sent  to  Guyana.  The  transaction  naturally  brings  to  one's  mind 
the  dialogue  between  FalstarTand  Hostess  Quickly  in  Shakspeare's  Henry  the  IVth. 

"  Fcdslaff.  Thou  art  neither  fish  nor  flesh — a  man  cannot  tell  where  to  have  thee. 

"  QuicJuy-  Thou  art  an  unjust  man  for  saying  so — thou  or  any  man  knows  where  to  have 

me." 

IT  For  instance,  in  the  course  of  a  political  discussion,  Rewbell  observed  to  the  ex-bishop — 
•'  that  his  understanding  was  as  crooked  as  his  legs" — "  Vil  emigre,  tu  n'as  pas  le  sens  plus 
droit  que  les  pieds" — and  therewith  threw  an  inkstand  at  him.  It  whizzed  along,  as  we 
have  been  informed,  like  the  fragment  of  a  rock  from  the  hand  of  one  of  Ossian's  heroes  ; 
but  the  wily  apostate  shrunk  beneath  the  table,  and  the  weapon  passed  over  him,  innocu- 
ous and  guiltless  of  his  blood  or  brains. 

**  See  Homer's  description  of  Vulcan,  first  Iliad  : 

Inextinguibilis  veroexoriebatur  risus  beatis  numinibus 
Ut  viderunt  Vulcanum  per  domos  ministrantem. 
ft  The  men  without  a  god — one  of  the  new  sects. — Their  religion  is  intended  to  consist 
in  the  adoration  of  a  great  book,  in  which  all  the  virtuous  actions  of  the  society  are  to  be 
72  YY 


554  APPENDIX. 

Ere  long-,  perhaps,  to  this  astonish'd  isle, 
Fresh  from  the  shores  of  subjugated  Nile, 
Shall  Bonaparte's  victor  fleet  protect 
The  genuine  theo-philanthropic  sect, — 
The  sect  of  Marat,  Mirabeau,  Voltaire, — 
Led  by  their  pontiff,  good  La  Reveillere. 
Rejoiced  our  clubs  shall  greet  him,  and  install 
The  holy  hunchback  in  thy  dome,  St.  Paul ! 
While  countless  votaries  thronging  in  his  train 
Wave  their  red  caps,  and  hymn  this  jocund  strain : 

"  Couriers  and  Stars,  sedition's  evening  host, 
Thou  Morning  Chronicle,  and  Morning  Post ! 
Whether  ye  make  the  rights  of  man  your  theme, 
Your  country  libel,  and  your  God  blaspheme, 
Or  dirt  on  private  worth  and  virtue  throw, 
Still  blasphemous  or  blackguard,  praise  Lepaux. 

"  And  ye  five  other  wandering  bards  that  move 
In  sweet  accord  of  harmony  and  love, 
C*****dge  and  S**th*y,  L***d,  and  L**b  and  Co. 
Tune  all  your  mystic  harps  to  praise  Lepaux  ! 

"  Pr***tl*y  and  W***f**ld,  humble  holy  men, 
Give  praises  to  his  name  with  tongue  and  pen  ! 

"  Th*lw*l,  and  ye  that  lecture  as  ye  go, 
And  for  your  pains  get  pelted,  praise  Lepaux! 

"  Praise  him,  each  jacobin,  or  fool,  or  knave, 
And  your  cropped  heads  in  sign  of  worship  wave  ! 

"  All  creeping  creatures,  venomous  and  low, 
Paine,  W*ll**ms,  G*dw*n,  H*lcr*ft — praise  Lepaux! 

"  And  thou  leviathan  !  on  ocean's  brim 
Hugest  of  living  things  that  sleep  and  swim  ; 
Thou  in  whose  nose  by  Burke's  gigantic  hand 
The  hook  was  fix'd  to  drag  thee  to  the  land  ; 

With , ,  and *  in  thy  train, 

And wallowing  in  the  yeasty  main — j 

Still  as  ye  snort,  and  puff,  and  spout,  and  blow, 
In  puffing  and  in  spouting,  praise  Lepaux !" 


Britain,  beware  ;  nor  let  th'  insidious  foe, 
Of  force  despairing,  aim  a  deadier  blow. 


entered  and  registered.  "  Tn  times  of  civil  commotion  they  are  to  come  forward,  to  exhort 
the  citizens  to  unanimity,  and  to  read  them  a  chapter  out  of  the  great  book.  When  op- 
pressed or  proscribed,  they  are  to  retire  to  a  burying  ground,  to  wrap  themselves  up  in  their 
great  coats,  and  wait  the  approach  of  death,"  &c. 

*  The  reader  is  at  liberty  to  fill  up  the  blanks  according  to  his  own  opinion,  and  after  the 
chances  and  changes  of  the  times.  It  would  be  highly  unfair  to  hand  down  to  posterity,  as 
followers  of  leviathan,  the  names  of  men  who  may,  and  probably  will  soon,  grow  ashamed 
of  their  leader. 

t  Though  the  yeasty  sea 
Consume  and  swallow  navigation  up. 

Macbeth. 


APPENDIX.  555 

Thy  peace,  thy  strength,  with  devilish  wiles  assail, 

And  when  her  arms  are  vain,  by  arts  prevail. 

True,  thou  art  rich,  art  powerful ! — through  thine  isle 

Industrious  Skill,  contented  Labour,  smile  ; 

Far  seas  are  studded  with  thy  countless  sails ; 

What  wind  but  wafts  them,  and  what  shore  but  hails'? 

True,  thou  art  brave  ! — o'er  all  the  busy  land 

In  patriot  ranks  embattled  myriads  stand  ; 

Thy  foes  behold  with  impotent  amaze, 

And  drop  the  lifted  weapon  as  they  gaze ! 

But  what  avails  to  guard  each  outward  part, 
If  subtlest  poison,  circling  at  thy  heart, 
Spite  of  thy  courage,  of  thy  power,  and  wealth, 
Mine  the  sound  fabric  of  thy  vital  health  1 

So  thine  own  oak,  by  some  fair  streamlet's  side, 
Waves  its  broad  arms,  and  spreads  its  leafy  pride, 
Towers  from  the  earth,  and  rearing  to  the  skies 
Its  conscious  strength,  the  tempest's  wrath  defies. 
Its  ample  branches  shield  the  fowls  of  air, 
To  its  cool  shade  the  panting  herds  repair. — 
The  treacherous  current  works  its  noiseless  way, — 
The  fibres  loosen,  and  the  roots  decay ; 
Prostrate  the  beauteous  ruin  lies  ;  and  all 
That  shared  its  shelter,  perish  in  its  fall. 

O  thou  ! — lamented  sage  ! — whose  prescient  scan 
Pierced  through  foul  anarchy's  gigantic  plan, 
Prompt  to  incredulous  hearers  to  disclose 
The  guilt  of  France,  and  Europe's  world  of  woes; — 
Thou,  on  whose  name  posterity  shall  gaze, 
The  mighty  sea-mark  of  these  troubled  days  ! 
O  large  of  soul,  of  genius  unconfined, 
Born  to  delight,  instruct,  and  mend  mankind  ! — 
Burke  !  in  whose  breast  a  Roman  ardour  glow'd 
Whose  copious  tongue  with  Grecian  richness  flow'd  ; 
Well  hast  thou  found  (if  such  thy  country's  doom) 
A  timely  refuge  in  the  sheltering  tomb  ! 

As,  in  far  realms,  where  eastern  kings  are  laid, 
In  pomp  of  death,  beneath  the  cypress  shade, 
The  perfumed  lamp  with  unextinguish'd  light 
Flames  through  the  vault,  and  cheers  the  gloom  of  night : — 
So,  mighty  Burke  !  in  thy  sepulchral  urn, 
To  fancy's  view,  the  lamp  of  truth  shall  burn. 
Thither  late  times  shall  turn  their  reverent  eyes, 
Led  by  thy  light,  and  by  thy  wisdom  wise. 

There  are,  to  whom  (their  taste  such  pleasures  cloy) 
No  light  thy  wisdom  yields,  thy  wit  no  joy. 
Peace  to  their  heavy  heads,  and  callous  hearts, 
Peace — such  as  sloth,  as  ignorance  imparts  ! — 
Pleased  may  they  live  to  plan  their  country's  good, 
And  crop  with  calm  content  their  flowery  food  ! 

What  though  thy  venturous  spirit  loved  to  urge 
The  labouring  theme  to  reason's  utmost  verge, 


556  APPENDIX. 

Kindling  and  mounting  from  th'  enraptured  sight ; — 
Till  anxious  Wonder  watch'd  thy  daring  flight ! 
While  vulgar  souls,  with  mean  malignant  stare, 
Gazed  up,  the  triumph  of  thy  fall  to  share. 
Poor  triumph  !  price  of  that  extorted  praise, 
Which  still  to  daring  genius  envy  pays. 

Oh  !  for  thy  playful  smile, — thy  potent  frown, 
T'  abash  bold  vice,  and  laugh  pert  folly  down 
So  should  the  muse,  in  humour's  happiest  vein, 
With  verse  that  flow'd  in  metaphoric  strain, 
And  apt  allusions  to  the  rural  trade, 
Tell,  of  what  wood  young  jacobins  are  made ; 
How  the  skill'd  gardener  grafts,  with  nicest  rule, 
The  slip  of  coxcomb  on  the  stock  of  fool ; — 
Forth  in  bright  blossom  bursts  the  tender  sprig, 
A  thing  to  wonder  at — perhaps*  a  whig. — 
Should  tell,  how  wise  each  half-fledged  pedant  prates 
Of  weightiest  matters,  grave  distinctions  states — 
That  rules  of  policy,  and  public  good, 
In  Saxon  times  were  rightly  understood  ; 
That  kings  are  proper,  may  be  useful  things, 
But  then  some  gentlemen  object  to  kings ; 
That  in  all  times  the  minister's  to  blame ; 
That  British  liberty's  an  empty  name, 
Till  each  fair  burgh,  numerically  free, 
Shall  choose  its  members  by  the  rule  of  three. 

So  should  the  Muse,  with  verse  in  thunder  clothed, 
Proclaim  the  crimes  by  God  and  nature  loathed, 
Which — when  fell  poison  revels  in  the  veins — 
(That  poison  fell  which  frantic  Gallia  drains 
From  the  crude  fruit  of  freedom's  blasted  tree) 
Blot  the  fair  records  of  humanity. 

To  feebler  nations  let  proud  France  afford 
Her  damning  choice, — the  chalice  or  the  sword, — 
To  drink  or  die  ; — oh  fraud  !  oh  specious  lie  ! 
Delusive  choice  !  for  if  they  drink,  they  die. 

The  sword  we  dread  not : — of  ourselves  secure, 
Firm  were  our  strength,  our  peace  and  freedom  sure. — 
Let  all  the  world  confederate  all  its  powers, 
"  Be  they  not  back'd  by  those  that  should  be  ours," 
High  on  his  rock  shall  Britain's  genius  stand, 
Scatter  the  crowded  hosts,  and  vindicate  the  land. 

Guard  we  but  our  own  hearts  :  with  constant  view, 
To  ancient  morals,  ancient  manners  true, 
True  to  the  manlier  virtues,  such  as  nerved 
Our  father's  breasts,  and  this  proud  isle  preserved 
For  many  a  rugged  age  : — and  scorn  the  while, — 
Each  philosophic  atheist's  specious  guile, — 

*  i.  e.  Perhaps  a  member  of  the  Whig  Club — a  society  that  has  presumed  to  monopolize 
to  itself  a  title  to  which  it  never  had  any  claim,  but  from  the  character  of  those  who  have 
now  withdrawn  themselves  from  it. — "  Perhaps,  signifies  that  even  the  Whig  Club  some- 
times rejects  a  candidate,  whose  principles  (risum  tene.atis  !)  it  affects  to  disapprove 


APPENDIX.  557 

The  soft  seductions,  the  refinements  nice, 

Of  gay  morality,  and  easy  vice: — 

So  shall  we  brave  the  storm  ; — our  'stablish'd  power 

Thy  refuge,  Europe,  in  some  happier  hour. — 

But,  French  in  heart — though  victory  crown  our  brow, 

Low  at  our  feet  though  prostrate  nations  bow, 

Wealth  gild  our  cities,  commerce  crowd  our  shore, — 

London  may  shine,  but  England  is  no  more. 


THE  FRIEND  OF  HUMANITY  AND  THE  KNIFE-GRINDER. 

Friend  of  Humanity. 

"  Needy  knife-grinder  !  whither  are  you  going1? 
Rough  is  the  road,  your  wheel  is  out  of  order — 
Bleak  blows  the  blast ; — your  hat  has  got  a  hole  in't, 

So  have  your  breeches  ! 

"  Weary  knife-grinder  !  little  think  the  proud  ones, 
Who  in  their  coaches  roll  along  the  turnpike- 
Road,  what  hard  work  'tis  crying  all  day,  •  Knives  and 

Scissars  to  grind  O  !' 

"  Tell  me,  knife-grinder,  how  came  you  to  grind  knives  ? 
Did  some  rich  man  tyrannically  use  you  ; 
Was  it  the  squire  1  or  parson  of  the  parish  1 

Or  the  attorney  1 

"  Was  it  the  squire  for  killing  of  his  game  1  or 
Covetous  parson,  for  his  tithes  distraining  ? 
Or  roguish  lawyer,  made  you  lose  your  little 

All  in  a  lawsuit  1 

*  (Have  you  not  read  the  Rights  of  Man,  by  Tom  Paine?) 
Drops  of  compassion  tremble  on  my  eyelids, 
Ready  to  fall,  as  soon  as  you  have  told  your 

Pitiful  story." 

Knife-Grinder. 

'■•  Story  !  God  bless  you !  I  have  none  to  tell,  sir, 
Only  last  night  a  drinking  at  the  Chequers, 
This  poor  old  hat  and  breeches,  as  you  see,  were 

Torn  in  a  scuffle. 

'■'  Constables  came  up  for  to  take  me  into 
Custody  ;  they  took  me  before  the  justice  ; 
Justice  Oldmixon  put  me  in  the  parish- 
stocks  for  a  vagrant. 

"  I  should  be  glad  to  drink  your  honour's  health  in 
A.  pot  of  beer,  if  you  will  give  me  sixpence ; 
3ut  for  my  part,  I  never  love  to  meddle 

With  politics,  sir. 

Friend  of  Humanity. 

'  /give  thee  sixpence  !  I  will  see  thee  damn'd  first — 
Wretch  !  whom  no  sense  of  wrongs  can  rouse  to  vengeance — 
Sordid,  unfeeling,  reprobate,  degraded, 

Spiritless  outcast !" 

Kicks  the  Knife-grinder,  overturns  his  wheel,  andexit  in  a  transport 
of  republican  enthusiasm  and  universal  philanthropy. 
vv* 


558  APPENDIX. 

OCCASIONAL  COMPOSITIONS. 


Mr.  Addington  was  designated  the  doctor,  because  his  father  kept  a  private 
madhouse  in  Berkshire.  Mr.  Hiley  Addington  is  the  brother  of  the  premier, 
for  whom,  during  his  administration,  he  had  provided  the  situation  of  pay- 
master. 

THE  GRAND  CONSULTATION. 

Ambubaiarum  Collegia  Pharmacopeia. — Horace. 

If  the  health  and  strength,  and  the  pure  vital  breath 
Of  old  England,  at  last,  must  be  doctored  to  death 
Oh  !  why  must  we  die  of  one  doctor  alone? 
And  why  must  that  doctor  be  just  such  a  one 
As  Doctor  Henry  Addington  1 

Oh  !  where  is  the  great  Doctor  Dominicetti, 
With  his  stews  and  his  flues,  and  his  vapours  to  sweat  ye  ? 
O  !  where  is  that  Prince  of  all  Mountebank  fame, 
With  his  baths  of  hot  earth,  and  his  beds  of  hot  name  ? 
Oh  !  where  is  Doctor  Graham  ? 

Where  are  Somnambule  Mesmer's  convulsions  magnetic  1 
Where  is  Myersbach,  renown'd  for  his  pills  diuretic  ? 
Where  is  Perkins,  with  tractors  of  magical  skill  ? 
Where  is  the  anodyne  necklace  of  Basil  Burchell  1 
Oh  !  where  is  the  great  Van  Butchell  1 

Where's  Sangrado  Rush,  so  notorious  for  bleedings? 
Where's  Rumford,  so  famed  for  his  writings  and  readings ; 
Where's  that  Count  of  the  Kettle,  that  friend  to  the  belly, 
So  renown'd  for  transforming  old  bones  into  jelly  1 
Where,  too,  is  the  great  Doctor  Kelly  ? 

While  Sam  Solomon's  lotion  the  public  absterges, 
He  gives  them  his  gold*  as  well  as  his  purges; 
But  our  frugal  doctor  this  practice  to  shun, 
Gives  his  pills  to  the  public,  the  Pells  to  his  Son. 

Oh  !  fie  !  fie  !  Doctor  Addington  ! 

Oh  !  where  is  Doctor  Solomon  ? 

Where  are  all  the  great  doctors  ?     No  longer  we  want 
This  farrago  of  cowardice,  cunning  and  cant; 
These  braggarts  !  that  one  moment  know  not  what  fear  is, 
And  the  next  moment,  trembling,  no  longer  know  where  is — 
Lord  Hawkesbury'sf  march  to  Paris  1 

Then  for  Hobart  and  Sullivan,  Hawkey  and  Hervey, 
For  Wallace  and  Castlereagh,  Bleke  and  Glenbervie, 
For  Sergeant,  Vansittart,  Monkhouse,  and  Lee, 
Give  us  Velno  and  Anderson,  Locke,  Spilsbury, 

Doctor  Ball,  Doctors  Brodum,  and  Bree. 

And  instead  of  the  jack-pudding  bluster  of  Sherry, 
With  his  "  dagger  of  lath,"  and  his  speeches  so  merry  !£ 

*  Vide  daily  papers  :  Doctor  Solomon's  Charitable  Subscriptions  and  Abstergent  Lotion. 
+  Now  Lord  Liverpool. 

t  See  Mr.  Gilray's  admirable  Caricature,  entitled  "Dramatic  Loyalty;  or  the  Patriotic 
ourage  of  Sherry  Andrew." 


APPENDIX.  559 

Let  U9  bring  to  the  field — every  foe  to  appal — 
Aldini's  galvanic  deceptions — and  all 

The  sleight-of-hand  tricks  of  Conjuror  Val. 

So  shall  Golding  and  Bond,  the  Doctor's  tall  yeomen, 
Dame  Hiley,  Dame  Bragge,  and  the  other  old  Women, 
For  new  mountebanks  changed,  their  old  tricks  bid  farewell  to, 
And  the  famed  d'lvernois  his  arithmetic  sell  to 

The  wonderful  wonder,  the  great  Katterfelto  ! 

So  shall  England,  escaped  from  her  "safe  politicians," 
Such  an  army  array  of  her  quacks  and  physicians, 
Such  lotions  and  potions,  pills,  lancets,  and  leeches, 
That  Massena  shall  tremble  our  coast  when  he  reaches, 
And  the  Consul  himself 


THE  PILOT  THAT  WEATHER'D  THE  STORM. 

If  hush'd  the  loud  whirlwind  that  ruffled  the  deep  ; 

The  sky,  if  no  longer  dark  tempests  deform ; 
When  our  perils  are  past,  shall  our  gratitude  sleep  ] 

No  ! — Here's  to  the  Pilot  that  weather'd  the  storm  ! 

At  the  footstool  of  Power  let  Flattery  fawn, 

Let  Faction  her  idols  extol  to  the  skies  ; 
To  Virtue,  in  humble  resentment  withdrawn, 

Unblamed  may  the  merits  of  gratitude  rise. 

And  shall  not  his  memory  to  Britain  be  dear, 
Whose  example  with  envy  all  nations  behold 

A  statesman  unbiass'd  by  interest  or  fear, 
By  power  uncorrupted,  untainted  by  gold  1 

Who,  when  terror  and  doubt  through  the  universe  reio-n'd, 
While  rapine  and  treason  their  standards  unfurl'd, 

The  heart  and  the  hopes  of  his  country  maintain'd, 

And  one  kingdom  preserved  'midst  the  wreck  of  the  world. 

Unheeding,  unthankful,  we  bask  in  the  blaze, 
While  the  beams  of  the  sun  in  full  majesty  shine  ; 

When  he  sinks  into  twilight,  with  fondness  we  gaze, 
And  mark  the  mild  lustre  that  gilds  his  decline. 

Lo  !  Pitt,  when  the  course  of  thy  greatness  is  o'er, 

Thy  talents,  thy  virtues,  we  fondly  recall ! 
Now  justly  we  prize  thee,  when  lost  we  deplore; 

Admired  in  thy  zenith,  but  loved  in  thy  fall  ! 

O  !  take,  then — for  dangers  by  wisdom  repell'd, 
For  evils,  by  courage  and  constancy  braved — 

O  take !  for  a  throne  by  thy  counsels  upheld, 
The  thanks  of  a  people  thy  firmness  has  saved  ! 

And  O  !  if  again  the  rude  whirlwind  should  rise  ! 

The  dawnings  of  peace  should  fresh  darkness  deform, 
The  regrets  of  the  good,  and  the  fears  of  the  wise, 

Shall  turn  to  the  Pilot  that  weather'd  the  storm  ! 


560  APPENDIX. 

ODE  TO  THE  "  DOCTOR." 

How  blest,  how  firm  the  statesman  stands, 
(Him  no  low  intrigue  e'er  shall  move,) 

Circled  by  faithful  kindred  bands, 
And  propp'd  by  fond  fraternal  love. 

When  his  speeches  hobble  vilely, 

What  "  Hear  hims"  burst  from  brother  Hiley ; 

When  the  faltering  periods  lag, 

Hark  to  the  cheers  of  brother  Bragge. 

When  the  faltering  periods  lag, 
Or  his  yawning  audience  flag, 
When  his  speeches  hobble  vilely, 
Or  the  house  receives  him  dryly, 
Cheer,  O  !  cheer  him,  brother  Bragge  ! 
Cheer,  0  !  cheer  him,  brother  Hiley  ! 

Each  a  gentleman  at  large, 
Lodged  and  fed  at  public  charge, 
Paying  (with  a  gTace  to  charm  ye) 
This  the  fleet,  and  that  the  army. 

Brother  Bragge  and  brother  Hiley, 
Cheer  him  !  when  he  speaks  so  vilely 
Cheer  him  !  when  his  audience  flag, 
Brother  Hiley,  brother  Bragge. 


MODERATE  MEN  AND  MODERATE  MEASURES. 

Praise  to  placeless  proud  ability, 

Let  the  prudent  muse  disclaim  ; 
And  sing  the  Statesman — all  civility — 

Whom  moderate  talents  raise  to  fame. 
He,  no  random  projects  urging, 

Makes  us  wild  alarms  to  feel ; 
With  moderate  measures,  gently  purging 

Ills  that  prey  on  Britain's  weal. 

CHORUS. 

Gently  purging, 

Gently  purging, 

Gently  purging  Britain's  weal.* 

Addington,  with  measured  motion, 

Keep  the  tenor  of  thy  way  ; 
To  glory  yield  no  rash  devotion, 

Led  by  luring  lights  astray ; 
Splendid  talents  are  deceiving ; 

Tend  to  councils  much  too  bold  ; 
Moderate  men  we  prize,  believing 

All  that  glisters  is  not  gold. 

GRAND  CHORUS. 

All  that  glisters, 

All  that  glisters, 

All  that  glisters  is  not  gold.| 

*  Ere  human  statute  purged  the  general  weal. — Shakspeari:. 
t  Nor  all  that  glisters  gold.— Gray. 


APPENDIX-  561 


EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  SPEECHES  OF  MR.  CANNING. 


ON    THE    ARMY    ESTIMATES. DEC.  8.   1802. 

But  if  I  am  pushed  to  the  wall,  and  forced  to  speak  my  opinion,  I  have  no 
disguise  nor  reservation  ;  I  do  think  that  this  is  a  time  when  the  administra- 
tion of  the  government  ought  to  be  in  the  ablest  and  fittest  hands  ;  I  do  not 
think  the  hands  in  which  it  is  now  placed  answer  to  that  description  ;  I  do 
not  pretend  to  conceal  in  what  quarter  I  think  that  fitness  most  eminently  re- 
sides ;  I  do  not  subscribe  to  the  doctrines  which  have  been  advanced,  that  in 
times  like  the  present  the  fitness  of  individuals  for  their  political  situation  is 
no  part  of  the  consideration  to  which  a  member  of  parliament  may  fairly  turn 
his  attention.  I  know  not  a  more  solemn  or  important  duty  that  a  member  of 
parliament  can  have  to  discharge,  than  by  giving,  at  fit  seasons,  a  free  opinion 
upon  the  character  and  qualities  of  public  men.  Away  with  the  cant  of 
"measures,  not  men  !"  the  idle  supposition  that  it  is  the  harness  and  not  the 
horses  that  draw  the  chariot  along  !  No,  sir,  if  the  comparison  must  be  made, 
if  the  distinction  must  be  taken,  men  are  every  thing,  measures  comparatively 
nothing.  I  speak,  sir,  of  times  of  difficulty  and  danger ;  of  times  when  sys- 
tems are  shaken,  when  precedents  and  general  rules  of  conduct  fail.  Then  it 
is,  that  not  to  this  or  that  measure,  however  prudently  devised,  however 
blameless  in  execution,  but  to  the  energy  and  character  of  individuals,  a  state 
must  be  indebted  for  its  salvation.  Then  it  is  that  kingdoms  rise  or  fall  in 
proportion  as  they  are  upheld,  not  by  well-meant  endeavours,  (laudable  though 
they  may  be,)  but  by  commanding,  overawing  talents  ;  by  able  men.  And 
what  is  the  nature  of  the  times  in  which  we  live  1  Look  at  France,  and  see 
what  we  have  to  cope  with,  and  consider  what  has  made  her  what  she  is  1  A 
man.  You  will  tell  me  that  she  was  great,  and  powerful,  and  formidable, 
before  the  days  of  Bonaparte's  government ;  that  he  found  in  her  great  phy- 
sical and  moral  resources  ;  that  he  had  but  to  turn  them  to  account.  True, 
and  he  did  so.  Compare  the  situation  in  which  he  found  France  with  that  to 
which  he  has  raised  her.  I  am  no  panegyrist  of  Bonaparte  ;  but  I  cannot  shut 
my  eyes  to  the  superiority  of  his  talents,  to  the  amazing  ascendant  of  his  ge- 
nius. Tell  me  not  of  his  measures  and  his  policy.  It  is  his  genius,  his  cha- 
racter, that  keeps  the  world  in  awe.  Sir,  to  meet,  to  check,  to  curb,  to  stand 
up  against  him,  vre  want  arms  of  the  same  kind.  I  am  far  from  objecting  to 
the  lar^e  military  establishments  which  are  proposed  to  you.  I  vote  for  them 
with  all  my  heart.  But  for  the  purpose  of  coping  with  Bonaparte,  one  great 
commanding  spirit  is  worth  them  all.     This  is  my  undisguised  opinion. 

ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  EMPIRE. JUNE  24,  1808. 

America,  >ir,  is  the  next  subject  of  the  honourable  gentleman's  speech 
which  I  shall  notice.  Of  nearly  all  that  has  passed  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, the  house  and  the  public  have  been  put  in  possession  by  the  publications 
of  the  American  government.  I  presume  that  the  honourable  (rrntlernan  does 
not  intend  to  blame  his  majesty's  ministers  for  not  having  made  similar  com- 
munications to  parliament;  for  if  he  had  thought  such  communications  neces- 
sary, he  would  doubtless  have  moved  for  them.  Without  censuring  their 
production  by  the  American  government,  his  majesty's  ministers  have  felt 
that  the  transaction  being  pending,  any  appeal  from  government  to  parliament 
would  look  as  if  it  were  concluded.  I  shall  only  state,  that  in  the  whole 
conduct  of  the  British  government,  with  respect  to  the  affair  of  the  Chesa- 
73 


562  APPENDIX. 

peake,  we  have  endeavoured  to  keep  in  view  the  principle  upon  which  we  set 
out:  namely,  to  make  ample  reparation  for  that  which  was  a  decidedly  wrong 
act ;  but  to  make  that  reparation  under  a  firm  determination  not  to  surrender  a 
right  which  the  great  majority  of  the  country  has  ever  considered  as  essential 
to  its  dearest  interests.  Sir,  I  may  boldly  appeal  to  the  country  to  determine 
whether,  from  the  correspondence  on  the  table  of  the  house,  any  such  disposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  his  majesty's  ministers  has  appeared  through  the  whole 
transaction.  That  the  rupture  of  the  negotiation  on  this  subject  was  not 
attended  with  any  hostile  feeling  on  either  side  is  an  incontrovertible  truth. 
The  reparation  was  not  accepted  by  America,  because  America  would  not 
fulfil  the  condition  on  which  alone  it  was  tendered  ;  namely,  the  revocation  of 
that  proclamation  by  which  British  ships  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  har- 
bours of  America,  while  those  of  the  enemy  visited  them  at  pleasure.  But, 
sir,  the  manner  in  which  the  British  reparation  was  tendered  to  America  by  a 
special  mission,  was,  to  all  the  feelings  of  nice  honour,  an  effective  repara- 
tion ;  and  so,  in  fact,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  considered 
by  the  American  government.  With  respect,  sir,  to  the  embargo,  and  to  the 
probable  effects  of  the  orders  in  council  in  producing  its  abandonment,  the 
honourable  gentleman  has  mis-stated  my  right  honourable  friend's  proposi- 
tions. The  honourable  gentleman  declares  my  right  honourable  friend  to  have 
predicted  that  the  orders  in  council  would  do  away  the  embargo;  whereas  my 
right  honourable  friend  only  argued,  in  opposition  to  the  honourable  gentleman 
on  the  other  side,  that  the  orders  in  council  did  not  produce  the  embargo; 
that  they  were  not  substantively  known  in  America  when  the  embargo  took 
place  ;  and  that  they  were  not  included  in  the  complaint  made  by  the  Ameri- 
can government  to  congress,  on  which  complaint  the  embargo  was  founded. 
Nor,  sir,  do  I  think  that  the  orders  in  council  themselves  could  have  produced 
any  irritation  in  America.  If  I  were  not  disposed  on  this  occasion  to  avoid 
making  any  observations  that  might  be  suspected  of  a  party  feeling,  I  would 
say,  that  I  do  think  the  irritation  in  America  may  have  been  produced  by  the 
echo  of  the  discussions  in  this  house.  Sir,  since  the  return  of  Mr.  Rose,  no 
communication  has  been  made  by  the  American  government,  in  the  form  of 
complaint,  or  remonstrance,  or  irritation,  or  of  any  description  whatever.  I 
mention  this  particularly,  because  it  is  notorious  that  there  have  been  several 
arrivals  from  America  supposed  to  be  of  great  importance,  and  that  several 
special  messengers  have  reached  this  country  from  thence,  after  having 
touched  at  France.  But,  sir,  if  the  honourable  gentleman,  in  the  execution 
of  his  public  duty,  had  thought  fit  to  move  for  any  communications  that  had 
been  made  by  the  American  government  since  the  departure  of  Mr.  Rose,  my 
answer  must  have  been,  not  that  his  majesty's  government  were  disinclined 
to  make  them,  but  that  absolutely  there  were  none  to  make.  If  it  be  askea 
why  1  lam  unable  satisfactorily  to  reply.  I  can  only  conjecture  that  America 
has  entered  into  negotiations  with  France,  which  are  expected  to  lead  to  some 
result,  and  that  the  communications  of  America  to  this  country  are  to  be  con- 
tingent on  that  result.  This,  sir,  is  conjecture  alone  ;  but  it  is  founded  on  the 
extraordinary  circumstance  of  so  many  arrivals  without  any  communication. 
It  cannot  be  expected  of  me,  that  I  should  state  prospectively  what  are  the 
views  of  his  majesty's  government  on  this  subject.  The  principle  by  which 
they  have  hitherto  been  guided,  they  will  continue  invariably  to  pursue. 
They  attach  as  much  value  to  the  restoration,  and  to  the  continuance  of  cor- 
diality, and  perfect  good  understanding  with  America,  as  any  men  can  do; 
they  are  ready  to  purchase  that  advantage  by  every  justifiable  conciliation; 
they  have  proved  that  readiness  by  the  act  of  the  present  session,  in  which 
the  trade  of  America  has  been  placed  on  the  most  favourable  footing ;  but, 
sir,  they  are  not  ready  to  purchase  that  advantage,  great  as  they  acknowledge 
it  to  be,  at  the  price  of  the  surrender  of  those  rights,  on  which  the  naval  power 
and  preponderance  of  Great  Britain  are  immutably  fixed. 


APPENDIX.  563 


ON    THE    STATE    OF    THE    NATION. 


It  appears  to  be  a  measure  of  party  to  run  down  the  fame  of  Mr.  Pitt. 
I  could  not  answer  it  to  my  conscience  or  to  my  feelings  if  I  had  suffered 
repeated  provocations  to  pass  without  notice.  Mr.  Pitt,  it  seems,  was  not  a 
great  man.  Is  it  then  that  we  live  in  such  heroic  times — that  the  present  is 
a  race  of  such  gigantic  talents  and  qualities  as  to  render  those  of  Mr.  Pitt,  in 
the  comparison,  ordinary  and  contemptible  ?  Who,  then,  is  the  man  now  liv- 
ing— is  there  any  man  now  sitting  in  this  House,  who  by  taking  the  measure 
of  his  own  mind,  or  of  that  of  any  of  his  contemporaries,  can  feel  himself 
justified  in  pronouncing  that  Mr.  Pitt  was  not  a  great  man  1  I  admire  as  much 
as  any  man  the  abilities  and  ingenuity  of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentle- 
man who  promulgated  this  opinion.  I  do  not  deny  to  him  many  of  the  quali- 
ties which  go  to  constitute  the  character  which  he  has  described.  But  I  think 
I  may  defy  all  his  ingenuity  to  frame  any  definition  of  that  character 
which  shall  not  apply  to  Mr.  Pitt — to  trace  any  circle  of  greatness  from  which 
Mr.  Pitt  shall  be  excluded. 

I  have  no  manner  of  objection  to  see  placed  on  the  same  pedestal  with  Mr. 
Pitt,  for  the  admiration  of  the  present  age  and  of  posterity,  other  distinguished 
men,  and  amongst  them  his  great  rival,  whose  memory  is,  I  have  no  doubt,  as 
dear  to  the  honourable  gentlemen  opposite,  as  that  of  Mr.  Pitt  is  to  those  who 
loved  him  living,  and  who  revere  him  dead.  But  why  should  the  admiration 
of  one  be  incompatible  with  justice  to  the  ether  1  Why  cannot  we  cherish  the 
remembrance  of  the  respective  objects  of  our  veneration,  leaving  to  each  other 
a  similar  freedom  1  For  my  own  part,  I  disclaim  such  a  spirit  of  intolerance. 
Be  it  the  boast  and  the  characteristic  of  the  school  of  Pitt,  that,  however  pro- 
voked by  illiberal  and  unjust  attacks  upon  his  memory,  whether  in  speeches 
in  this  House,  or  in  calumnies  out  of  it,  they  will  never  so  far  forget  the 
respect  due  to  him  or  to  themselves,  as  to  be  betrayed  into  reciprocal  illiberality 
and  unjustice — that  they  disdain  to  retaliate  upon  the  memory  of  Mr.  Pitt's 
great  rival. 

o 

INDEMNITY    BILL. MARCH  11,   1818. 

How  often  have  we  heard  in  this  House  heart-rending  declamations  about 
the  cruelty  of  despotism,  and  the  selfishness  of  warriors,  which  sacrificed  my- 
riads at  the  altar  of  ambition.  Nay,  sometimes  even,  though  rarely,  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  have  expressed  their  indignation  at  Bona- 
parte himself,  who  considered  the  inhabitants  of  a  great  empire  as  mere  raw 
materials  for  working  out  his  own  false  glory.  All  this  is  certainly  bad 
enough:  but  what  can  be  said  of  those,  who  even  without  the  apology  of  this 
motive,  which,  pernicious  as  it  is,  has  yetitsdazzlingcharms  for  weak  human 
nature,  what  shall  be  said  of  those  who,  with  cold  calculation,  enter  the  cot- 
tage of  poverty,  not  to  sympathize  with  the  condition  of  the  wretched  inhabi- 
tant and  his  starving  family,  and  to  relieve  it,  but  calmly  to  guage  his  misery, 
that  they  may  ascertain  his  capacity  for  mischief;  not  to  rescue  him  from 
ruin,  but  in  hopes  that  they  may  find  him  fitted  to  be  an  agent  to  assist  in  the 
ruin  of  his  country  ]  These  are  the  men  against  whom  the  crime  of  violating 
the  constitution  is  chargeable  ;  these  are  the  men  against  whom  the  suspen- 
sion of  the  habeas  corpus  was  aimed  ;  and  yet  these  are  the  men  who  are  to 
be  put  in  the  judgment  seat,  while  ministers  are  to  be  tried  on  their  accusa- 
tion, and  condemned  by  their  evidence.  And  this  is  recommended  to  the 
House  as  the  due  course  of  retributive  justice  ! 

But  the.  honourable  baronet  (Sir  F.  Burdett)  has  made,  it  seems,  a  most 
ino-enious  discovery  ;  he  has  found  out,  that  as  the  whole  nation  were  deter- 
mined on  parliamentary  reform,  ministers  had  no  other  means  of  saving  them- 
selves from  the  consequences  of  that  mighty  change,  than  by  inventing  plots, 


564  APPENDIX. 

and  fomenting  conspiracies.  Does  the  honourable  baronet,  imagine  that  he  can 
persuade  any  one  that  this  is  the  real  state  of  the  case  ?  Does  he  imagine, 
that  by  any  mode  of  division  or  multiplication,  which  he  may  adopt  for  his 
reform  petitions,  whether  he  presents  them  in  tens,  signed  by  thousands,  or  in 
thousands,  signed  by  tens,  does  he  really  natter  himself  that  he  can  persuade 
the  House,  or  himself,  that  parliamentary  reform  is  a  favourite  measure  with 
the  people  of  England  ?  Does  he  suppose  that  the  great  body  of  the  nation 
cares  one  jot  about  his  wild  plans  of  annual  parliaments,  and  universal  suf- 
frage ?  Nay,  can  he  reconcile  to  himself  the  justice  or  consistency  of  his 
plan  of  universal  suffrage,  as  it  is  called  ?  How  can  he  excuse  the  omission 
of  females,  and  of  the  insane,  from  the  classes  of  electors  and  representatives? 
Oh!  calumniated  females!  Oh!  calumniated  insane!  Is  it  from  dread  of 
the  power  of  the  female  sex — or  from  jealousy  of  the  wisdom  of  insanity  ? 
For  my  part,  I  feel  assured,  that  whatever  measure  of  exclusion  may  be  dealt 
to  the  women,  the  insane  portion  of  the  community  have  been  excluded  from 
the  petitions  hitherto  presented,  only  that  they  may  come  forward  hereafter, 
with  more  weight  and  effect,  in  a  petition,  subscribed  exclusively  by  them- 
selves ;  and  that  the  day  is  not  far  distant,  when  the  honourable  baronet  shall 
present  a  petition  for  reform  from  the  inhabitants  of  the  receptacle  near  Ken- 
nington,  vouching  for  the  respectful  tenor  of  its  language,  and  pledging  him- 
self for  the  constitutional  temperance  of  its  argument. 

But,  sir,  if  this  would  be  consistent  in  the  honourable  baronet,  what  shall 
be  said  of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  who  has  just  sat  down,  (Mr. 
Brougham,)  who,  in  his  heart,  laughs  at  all  these  schemes  of  reform,  and 
looks  with  the  profoundest  scorn  on  all  who  entertain  them  : — of  him,  who 
knows  that  every  petition  on  this  subject  comes  either  from  deluders  or  de- 
luded ;  yet,  under  a  pretence  that  he  is  a  friend  to  something  like  a  reform, 
will,  every  now  and  then,  support  such  petitions  for  the  mere  purpose  of  popu- 
larity. That  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  has  apologized  for  pronounc- 
ing an  eloquent  panegyric  on  the  constitution,  which  he  apprehends  to  have 
been  brought  into  danger  by  the  acts  of  this  House.  If  the  constitution  was 
in  danger,  sure,  very  sure  am  I,  that  it  was  a  danger  of  a  very  different  sort 
from  any  which  could  be  cured  by  inflaming  and  maddening  the  people. 
Who  are  the  best  friends  of  the  people  ?  those  who  are  always  ringing  in 
Iheir  ears  the  extent  and  imprescriptibility  of  their  rights,  orthose  who,  while 
they  tell  them  of  their  rights,  tell  them  they  have  duties  also  ?  I  would  say 
to  the  real  friends  of  the  people,  instruct,  enlighten  them,  and  then  there  will 
be  no  danger ;  but  do  not  teach  them  to  nourish  an  envious  jealousy  of  wealth, 
a  hatred  of  rank,  and  a  general  malignity  at  all  superiority.  It  is,  indeed,  the 
proud  boast  of  our  glorious  constitution,  that  the  poorest  peasant  may  emerge 
from  the  meanest,  hut,  and  himself,  or  in  his  descendants,  rise  to  the  highest 
rank  of  the  state.  But  let  there  at  least  remain  high  ranks  for  them  to  rise  to. 
To  level  ranks  would  not  be  to  equalize,  but  to  destroy,  to  confound  the  ele- 
ments  of  society,  and  to  produce  universal  degradation.  But  I  ask  whether 
every  man  who  hears  me  does  not  know  that  either  in  his  own  immediate 
neighbourhood,  or  in  districts  of  which  he  has  knowledge,  a  sedulous  and 
wicked  activity  has  been  employed  in  disseminating  the  doctrines  of  discon- 
tent, and  exasperating  suffering  into  malignity  ?  I  ask  whether  hatred  to  go- 
vernment, as  government,  not  merely  to  particular  individuals,  (a  tax  which 
those  who  fill  ostensible  situations  in  the  state  must  make  up  their  minds  to 
bear  as  they  may,)  but  to  government  by  whomsoever  administered,  to  emi- 
nence as  eminence,  to  rank  as  rank,  have  not  been  industriously  inculcated? 
Whether  the  crown  and  its  ministers  have  not  been  proscribed  as  the  natural 
enemies  of  the  people  ?  And  this  House  held  up  to  peculiar  detestation  and 
horror,  as  the  tyrants  of  the  commons,  whom  they  are  especially  bound  to 
protect?  The  starving  artizan  is  told,  by  his  mischievous  seducer,  that  all 
his  distress  arises  from  an  imperfect   representation  in  parliament.     If  this 


APPENDIX.  565 

assertion  means  any  thing,  it  must  mean  this — that  parliament,  as  at  present 
constituted,  encourages  unnecessary  wars  ;  that  unnecessary  wars  produce 
extravagant  expenditure ;  that  extravagant  expenditure  produces  exorbitant 
taxation;  and  that  exorbitant  taxation  produces  overwhelming  misery.  Now 
what  is  the  inference  of  the  parliamentary  reformers]  Is  it  that  parliament, 
more  popularized,  more  democratically  constituted,  would  be  less  inclined  to 
war"?  I  appeal  to  all  history,  ancient  or  modern,  whether  democratic  states 
have  not  always  been  fondest  of  war.  Look  at  Athens,  look  at  Rome,  look 
at  the  petty  republics  of  more  modem  times.  Was  not  the  appetite  for  war 
in  all  these  governments  perpetually  excited  and  perpetually  indulged  1 
Would  the  case  be  different  among  ourselves'?  Is  it  not  notorious  that  the 
humblest  peasants  in  this  country  have  been  used  to  sympathize  with  the  vic- 
tories of  its  warriors,  and  to  feel  themselves  partakers  in  their  honour  1  True 
it  is  that  of  late  a  chill  philosophy  has  been  busy  in  numbing  even  this,  the 
natural  enthusiasm  of  a  brave  people  ;  in  sophisticating  their  feelings  and  be- 
wildering their  reason  ;  in  rendering  them  dead  to  the  glories  of  Waterloo, 
but  tremblingly  alive  to  the  imperfections  of  Old  JSarum.  But  it  will  not  do; 
and  I  must  say  that  I  distrust  the  sense  of  any  man  who  can  build  a  hope  of 
discomfiture  to  ministers  on  the  popularity  of  parliamentary  reform. 

It  is  not  against  parliamentary  reform,  but  against  the  frantic  follies  circu- 
lated under  that  pretext,  and  the  mischiefs  attempted  to  be  perpetrated  under 
the  shadow  of  its  name,  that  government  appealed  to  parliament,  and  that  par- 
liament had  recourse  to  the  Suspension  Act.  That  act  is  happily  at  an  end. 
I  am  not  disposed  to  undervalue  the  evil  of  its  enactment,  whether  in  itself  or 
whether  considered  as  a  precedent  for  other  times.  But  they  surely  read  but 
ill  the  signs  of  the  present  times,  who  think  that  in  or  out  of  parliament  there 
is  a  leaning  against  popular  rights  and  feelings.  How  strangely  do  topics 
survive  the  occasions  which  produce  them.  Not  more  idle  was  it  in  the 
rhetoricians  of  imperial  Rome  to  make  declamations  in  favour  of  Brutus,  ages 
after  the  extinction  of  Roman  liberty,  than  it  is  in  the  patriots  of  these  days  to 
pretend  an  apprehension  of  arbitrary  power,  and  to  rail  against  enslaved  par- 
liaments and  an  usurping  crown. 

The  dangers  which  now  threaten  society  are  of  a  different  kind,  and  come 
in  an  opposite  direction ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  parliament  to  provide  with 
equal  watchfulness  not  only  against  the  blast  of  the  lightning  from  above,  but 
against  the  destructive  explosion  from  below. 

But  let  us  hope  that  these  dangers  are  for  the  present  passed  away.  If,  in 
the  hour  of  peril,  the  statue  of  liberty  has  been  veiled  for  a  moment,  let  it  be 
confessed  in  justice  that  the  hands  whose  painful  duty  it  was  to  spread  that 
veil,  have  not  been  the  least  prompt  to  remove  it.  If  the  palladium  of  the 
constitution  has  for  a  moment  trembled  in  its  shrine,  let  it  be  acknowledged 
that  through  the  vigilance  and  constancy  of  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  see 
that  the  fabric  took  no  harm,  the  shrine  itself  has  been  preserved  from  profa- 
nation, and  the  temple  stands  firm  and  unimpaired. 

ON    T1IK    CATHOLIC    CLAIMS. JUNE  22,  1812 

We  read,  sir,  in  the  history  of  ancient  Rome,  that  when  one  of  the  armies 
of  the  republic  had  fallen  into  the  power  of  the  enemy,  and  was  surrounded 
by  the  Samnites  at  the  Caudine  Forks,  the  victorious  general,  desirous  to 
make  the  most  of  the  advantage  which  he  had  obtained,  despatched  a  message 
to  his  father,  a  senator  celebrated  for  his  wisdom,  to  counsel  him  as  to  the 
most  expedient,  mode  of  disposing  of  his  captives. — "Dismiss  them  un  ran- 
somed and  unmolested,"  was  the  answer  of  the  aged  senator.  This  was  a 
strain  of  generosity  too  high  for  the  comprehension  of  the  son.  He  re-de- 
spatched his  messenger  to  con.Milt  his  oracle  again.  The  answer  then  was, 
■•  exterminate  them  to  the  last  man.*'     This  advice  was  so  unlike  the  former, 

zz 


566  APPENDIX. 

that  it  excited  a  suspicion  that  the  old  man's  intellects  were  deranged  :  he 
was  brought  to  the  camp  to  explain  the  discordancy  of  his  counsel.  "  By  my 
first  advice,"  said  he,  "  which  was  the  best,  1  recommended  to  you  to  ensure  the 
everlasting  gratitude  of  a  powerful  people;  by  my  second,  which  was  the 
worst,  I  pointed  out  to  you  the  policy  of  getting  rid  of  a  dangerous  enemy. 
There  is  no  third  way.  Tertium  nullum  consilium.''''  When  asked,  what  if  a 
middle  course  should  be  taken,  what  if  they  should  be  dismissed  unhurt,  but 
if  at  the  same  time  harsh  laws  should  be  imposed  upon  them  as  a  conquered 
enemy  ?  "  Ida  quidcm  sentmlia"  said  the  old  man,  "  ea  est,  quseneque  amicos 
pared  neque  inimicos  ft>//iY."  The  son,  however,  unhappily  for  his  country, 
thought  himself  wiser  than  his  father;  the  middle  course  was  adopted:  he 
neither  liberated  the  Romans,  nor  exterminated  them  ;  he  passed  their  necks 
under  the  yoke,  and  sent  them  home. 

Of  the  cruelties  exercised  against  the  first  reformers  by  the  ancient  church, 
then  struggling  for  the  maintenance  of  its  authority,  history  speaks  with  just 
horror  and  indignation.  But  can  any  man  now  entertain  a  serious  apprehen- 
sion that  it  is  necessary  to  be  on  our  guard  against  their  recurrence  1  Good 
God,  sir,  what  should  we  say  if  the  early  violences  of  the  reformation  itself 
were  to  be  arrayed  against  Protestants  as  a  lasting  and  inexpiable  reproach  ? 
If  the  outrages  and  extravagancies  of  the  Anabaptists  of  Munster — the  tyran- 
nical caprices  of  Henry  VIII. — the  severities  of  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth — the  burning  of  Servetus,  by  Calvin,  at  Geneva — the  coarse  and 
sacrilegious  fury  of  John  Knox  and  his  followers  in  Scotland — nay,  and  the 
oath  taken  by  King  William  himself — were  to  be  alleged  as  evidence  that  the 
several  descriptions  of  reformed  religion  are  necessarily  and  eternally  of  a  vio- 
lent and  sanguinary  character'?  We  should  object  to  such  an  inference  as 
absurd  and  unjustifiable  ;  and  may  not  the  Catholics  of  the  present  day  pro- 
test in  like  manner  against  conclusions  being  drawn  against  them,  from  the 
crimes  and  cruelties,  the  perfidies  and  atrocities,  of  those  who  held  the  same 
faith  two  hundred  years  ago? 

I  have  been  shocked  at  seeing  exposed  to  sale,  in  the  shop-windows  of  this 
metropolis,  an  address  to  the  worst  passions  of  the  vulgar,  entitled  "  An  Aw- 
ful Warning,  or  the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew."  Who  the  writer  is  I 
know  not.  It  is  not  right  to  attribute  bad  motives  to  any  man,  but  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  conceive  a  good  one  for  such  a  publication  as  this  which  I  hold  in  my 
hand.  WThy  publish  such  a  narrative  at  the  present  moment?  What  pur- 
pose, what  legitimate  feeling  can  it  be  intended  to  gratify  ?  What  have  the 
public  now  to  do  with  Charles  the  Ninth  and  Admiral  Coligny  ?  By  what 
sentiment  can  any  one  feel  himself  called  upon  at  this  time  of  day  to  narrate 
that  the  Guises  sprinkled  themselves  with  the  blood  of  their  unfortunate  vic- 
tim, and  that  the  Duke  d'Angouleme  viewed  his  butchered  corpse  with  emo- 
tions of  delight?  Why  represent  these  horrid  scenes  to  the  eyes  of  the  popu- 
lace ?  What  good  can  it  do  to  recall  the  memory  of  them  ?  If  the  torch  of 
religious  animosity  could  be  rekindled  at  the  present  moment,  what  would  the 
effect  be  but  to  risk  the  safety  of  the  British  empire  ?  This  mischievous  pub- 
lication is  illustrated  by  plates,  to  heighten  the  horrors  of  the  narrative.  In 
one  is  exhibited  the  assassination  of  Coligny,  in  another  the  Duke  d'Angou- 
leme dipping  his  handkerchief  in  his  blood.  Does  not  this  mode  of  illustra- 
tion clearly  show  to  what  description  of  readers  the  publication  is  peculiarly 
addressed  1  upon  what  class  of  understandings  it  is  intended  to  operate  ? 

But  neither  are  there  wanting  other  indications  of  the  same  purpose  ;  among 
these  is  the  dedication.  It  is  dedicated  to  the  memory  of  that  eminent  and 
virtuous  man  whose  loss  in  this  house  we  are  still  deploring,  and  who,  had 
he  been  alive,  warm  as  he  was  in  his  resistance  to  the  question  now  before 
the  house,  would  assuredly  have  disdained  and  discountenanced  such  a  mode 
of  resisting  it.  The  dedication  is  as  follows  : — "  Sacred  to  the  memory  of  the 
Right  Honourable  Spencer  Perceval,  prime  minister  of  these  realms,  whose 


APPENDIX.  567 

relative  situation  in  respect  of  the  established  religion  of  the  united  kingdom, 
was  similar  to  that  of  De  Coligny  in  France."  What  does  this  mean1?  How 
was  Mr.  Perceval's  situation,  with  respect  to  the  established  religion  of  this 
kingdom,  similar  to  that  of  De  Coligny  with  respect  to  the  established  religion 
of  France  1  So  much  for  the  accuracy  of  the  fact.  This  circumstance  is  one 
which  also  clearly  shows  for  what  scale  of  intellect  this  writer  calculated  his 
publication.  On  human  beings,  capable  of  investigation  and  discussion,  he 
knew  that  he  should  make  no  impression ;  he  therefore  directed  his  efforts  to 
infuriate  the  mob — not,  I  hope,  in  this  day,  to  be  infuriated  by  such  unhallow- 
ed means.  The  dedication  proceeds,  after  this  comparison  between  the  situ- 
ation of  Mr.  Perceval  and  that  of  the  Admiral  De  Coligny,  to  say  that  Mr. 
Perceval  "fell  like  him,  a  martyr  to  his  duty  to  his  king,  to  his  country,  and 
to  his  God."  History,  we  know,  is  sufficiently  liable  to  misrepresentation 
and  perversion  ;  but  so  shameless  an  attempt  as  this,  within  one  short  mouth 
after  the  transaction  to  which  it  refers,  I  should  think  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  records  of  historical  falsification. 

If,  sir,  with  a  deep  sense  of  a  dispensation  so  awful  and  afflicting  as  that 
with  which  we  have  recently  been  visited,  it  may  yet  be  permitted  to  us  to 
render  thanks  to  Providence  for  having  intermixed  some  qualification  of  mercy 
in  its  wrath,  that  gratitude  is  justly  due,  when  we  imagine  to  our  minds  the 
mischiefs  that  might  have  been  occasioned,  had  the  desperate  wretch  who 
committed  this  detested  deed  been  either  a  Catholic  or  an  Irishman.  It  is 
very  possible  that  he  might  have  been  either,  or  both,  and  yet  not  have  been 
influenced  by  any  motive  of  religious  fanaticism.  But  I  appeal  to  the  common 
sense  of  the  house,  whether,  if  by  accident,  the  assassin  of  Mr.  Perceval  had 
been  born  in  the  sister  island,  if  by  accident  he  had  been  a  Roman  Catholic, 
(as,  in  the  paragraph  I  have  just  read  to  them,  it  is  not  asserted  indeed,  but, 
with  Jesuitical  ambiguity,  is  more  than  insinuated ;)  whether,  I  say,  the  same 
blind  zeal  which  is  manifested  in  this  publication,  would  not  in  all  probability 
have  availed  itself  of  that  circumstance  to  stir  up  a  furious  and  fanatical  spirit, 
which  might  have  laid  both  countries  in  blood  1     *     *     * 

The  mention  of  the  name  of  Mr.  Burke,  and  of  that  of  my  late  right  honoura- 
ble friend,  naturally  suggests  the  consideration  of  the  authorities  by  which  the 
view  that  I  take  of  the  great  question  now  before  us,  has  been  supported  or 
opposed.  No  man  can  deem  more  highly  than  I  do  of  the  sagacity,  the  in- 
tegrity, the  force  of  my  late  right  honourable  friend's  understanding;  of  the 
purity  of  his  mind,  the  charity  of  his  temper,  and  the  unaffected  piety  by 
which  he  was  so  eminently  distinguished.  But,  considering  this,  as  I  must 
always  do,  as  a  great  state  question,  I  hope  I  may  be  excused  if  I  cannot  put 
his  authority  in  competition  with  the  united  authorities  of  so  many  great  men 
who  have  preceded  him;  with  the  authority,  not  of  Mr.  Burke  alone,  who, 
on  this  as  well  as  on  other  subjects,  outran  with  a  prophetic  celerity  the  pro- 
gress of  the  public  sentiment,  and  had  arrived  many  years  ago  at  that  opinion 
in  which  I  believe  it  may  be  said  that  the  generality  of  the  public  are  now 
agreed  ;  not  only  of  Mr.  Fox,  whose  general  love  of  liberty,  and  whose  ardent 
and  hardy  and  uncomprising  spirit  naturally  inclined  him  to  extend  to  the 
widest  range  the  limits  of  freedom  and  toleration ;  not  only,  I  say,  with  the 
authorities  of  these  great  men — men  who,  being  of  a  warm  and  sanguine  tem- 
perament, might  be  subjected  to  the  accusation  of  adopting  too  eagerly  every 
proposition  which  tended  towards  the  liberty  of  mankind  :  but  to  these  are  to 
be  added  the  name  of  Mr.  Windham,  whose  mind  was  cast  in  a  different 
mould,  whose  disposition,  so  far  from  being  rash  and  sanguine,  inclined  him 
rather  to  view  every  approach  to  an  enlargement  of  popular  privilege  with 
jealousy,  and  to  suspect  all  general  propositions  of  fallacy  and  danger.  I 
must  add  also  the  great  and  venerable  name  of  Mr.  Pitt,  whose  generous  phi- 
lanthropy, whose  attachment  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  were  as  warm  and 
uincere  as  those  of  any  man  that  ever  lived;  but  in  whom  these  feelings  were 


568 


APPENDIX. 


tempered  and  disciplined  by  early  habits  of  business  and  long  practical  expe- 
rience, which  had  taught  him  to  examine  specious  theories  with  distrust,  and 
to  build  his  plans  for  the  public  good  on  sure  and  solid  foundations.  If  then 
the  question  were  to  rest  upon  authority,  I  could  have  no  apprehension  as  to 
the  decision. 

But  it  is  not  the  influence  of  the  clergy  alone  that  is  an  object  of  apprehen- 
sion. The  great  body  of  Irish  Catholics  are,  it  is  said,  in  the  hands  of  agitators, 
who  wish  to  keep  their  discontents  alive  ;  who  care  not  for  the  professed  ob- 
ject of  Catholic  desire,  but  look  to  ulterior  purposes  of  mischief,  to  separation 
and  revolution.  If  this  be  so,  we  can  only  defeat  the  evil  intentions  of  such 
men  in  two  ways  :  either  by  correcting  their  disposition,  or  by  taking  away 
their  means.  The  former  is  beyond  human  power.  Let  us  avail  ourselves 
of  the  latter.  Let  us  remove  those  circumstances  which,  operating  upon  the 
feelings  of  the  Catholics,  render  them  fit  instruments  in  the  hands  of  agitators 
for  the  promotion  of  such  dangerous  designs.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that 
there  art  those  who  have  ulterior  views  and  objects.  Of  those  who  are  the 
most  clamorous  for  concession,  there  are  some,  I  do  believe,  who  would  be 
most  disappointed  if  that  concession  were  granted.  And  next  to  the  gratifica- 
tion which  I  should  feel  in  tranquillizing  a  loyal  and  high-minded  people,  by 
the  introduction  of  that  equality  of  rights,  without  which  there  can  be  no 
reciprocal  liking  and  confidence,  is  that  of  disappointing  the  guilty  hopes  of 
those  who  delight  not  in  tranquillity  and  concord,  but  in  grievances  and  re- 
monstrance ;  who  use  their  sincere  and  warm-hearted  countrymen  as  screens 
to  their  own  ambitious  purposes  ;  and  who  consider  a  state  of  turbulence  and 
discontent  as  best  suited  to  the  ends  which  they  have  in  view.  That  state  it 
may  be  their  wish  to  prolong,  but  so  much  the  rather  is  it  our  interest  and  our 
duty  to  terminate  it  as  speedily  as  possible. 

ON    FOREIGN    TREATIES. NOV.   17,   1813. 

With  reference,  however,  to  the  vote  of  this  night,  as  far  as  it  may  be  con- 
sidered prospective,  as  to  the  exertions  we  are  called  upon  in  future  to  make, 
1  must  observe,  that  even  if  our  hopes  of  peace  should  be  postponed,  or  even 
disappointed,  is  it  nothing  to  reflect  upon  the  posture  we  are  enabled  to 
assume,  by  the  achievements  we  have  already  performed  ?  Is  it  nothing 
to  look  back  upon  the  fallen,  the  crouching  attitude  of  enslaved  Europe,  at  a 
period  not  long  distant,  and  compare  it  with  the  upright,  free,  undaunted  posture 
in  which  she  now  stands  1  Living  memory  can  recall  no  period  when  she  was 
entitled  to  hold  her  head  so  high,  and  to  bid  such  bold  defiance  to  her  enemy. 
What,  let  me  ask,  is  the  first  and  brightest  fruit  of  the  late  successful  con- 
flict 1  First,  that  continuity  of  system,  that  instrument  of  not  wholly  ineffec- 
tual hostility  against  Great  Britain,  which,  until  lately,  was  supposed  to  be 
growing  in  strength  and  perfection,  has  been  destroyed  ;  that  complex  ma- 
chine directed  against  our  trade  has  received  a  blow  which  has  shivered  it  to 
atoms  !  The  enemy  is  doubly  defeated  ;  his  arms  and  his  artifices  have 
failed  :  burdened  as  it  was,  still  there  is  something  in  the  incompressible  na- 
ture of  commerce  which  rises  under  the  weight  of  the  most  powerful  tyranny ; 
his  efforts  have  been  exhausted  ;  his  monarchy  was  reduced  to  sink  our  com- 
merce ;  but,  rising  with  tenfold  vigour,  it  has  defied  his  puny  efforts,  never 
to  be  repeated.  The  next  point  that  we  have  attained  is,  the  destruction  of 
his  own  darling  system  of  confederation  !  I  mean,  that  system  by  which  he 
had  formed  all  the  states  of  continental  Europe  into  satellites  of  the  French 
empire,  that  moved  only  as  it  moved,  and  acted  only  by  its  influence.  They 
are  now  emancipated  ;  the  yoke  has  been  removed  from  their  shoulders  :  the 
nations  rise  superior  to  themselves, 

"  Free,  and  to  none  accountable,  preferring 
Hard  liberty,  before  the  easy  yoke 
Of  servile  pomp." 


APPENDIX.  569 

But,  since  all  the  events  of  war  are  precarious,  is  it  impossible,  that  after 
retiring- awhile,  the  tyrant  of  Europe  (now  no  longer  its  tyrant)  may  again 
burst  forward,  and  again,  with  desolation  in  his  train,  awhile  victorious, 
attempt  to  collect  the  fragments  of  that  system,  and  to  reconstruct  that  mighty 
engine  which  we  have  shattered,  but  which  once,  guided  by  his  hand,  hurled 
destruction  on  his  foes  ?  It  is  impossible.  After  the  defeats  that  he  has  sus- 
tained, all  confidence  between  him  and  his  vassal  states  must  be  annihilated. 
Admitting  that  they  may  be  compelled  again  to  act,  can  he  rely  upon  their 
exertions,  or  can  they  depend  upon  his  support?  He  may  go  forth  like  that 
foul  idol,  of  which  we  heard  so  much  in  the  last  year,  crushing  his  helpless 
victims  beneath  his  chariot  wheels ;  but  he  never  again  can  yoke  them  to  his 
car  as  willing  instruments  of  destruction.  Even  if  Austria,  by  base  submis- 
sion to  the  sacrifice  of  her  honour,  were  to  add  the  sacrifice  of  another  daugh- 
ter, and  of  another  army  of  30,000  men,  that  mutual  confidence  which  existed 
at  the  commencement  of  the  last  campaign  can  never  be  restored. 

So  much  for  the  present  state  of  Europe  :  but  has  this  country  gained  no- 
thing by  the  glorious  contest,  even  supposing  peace  should  be  far  distant?  Is 
it  nothing  to  Great  Britain,  even  purchased  at  the  high  price  stated  by  the 
noble  lord,  that  under  all  the  severity  of  her  sufferings,  while  her  trade  de- 
clined, her  military  character  has  been  exalted  ?  Is  it  no  satisfaction,  no 
compensation  to  her,  to  reflect  that  the  splendid  scenes  displayed  on  the  con- 
tinent are  owing  to  her  efforts  ?  that  the  victories  of  Germany  are  to  be  attri- 
buted to  our  victories  in  the  peninsula  ?  That  spark,  often  feeble,  sometimes 
so  nearly  extinguished  as  to  excite  despair  in  all  hearts  that  were  not  above  it, 
which  we  lighted  in  Portugal,  which  was  fed  and  nourished  there,  has  at 
length  burst  into  a  flame  that  has  dazzled  and  illuminated  Europe.  Shall  it 
then  be  said,  that  this  struggle  has  had  no  effect  upon  the  military  character 
of  Great  Britain  ?  At  the  commencement  of  this  war,  our  empire  rested  upon 
one  majestic  column,  our  naval  power.  In  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  a  hero 
has  raised  another  stupendous  pillar  of  strength  to  support  our  monarchy — 
our  military  pre-eminence.  It  is  now  that  we  may  boast  not  only  of  supe- 
riority at  sea,  but  on  shore :  the  same  energy  and  heroism  exist  in  both  the 
arms  of  Great  Britain ;  they  are  rivals  in  strength,  but  inseparable  in  glory. 
If,  at  a  future  period,  by  successes  which  we  cannot  foresee,  and  by  aggres- 
sions which  we  cannot  resist,  war  should  again  be  threatened  upon  our  own 
shores,  what  consolation  will  the  reflection  afford,  that  out  of  the  calamities 
and  the  privations  of  war  has  arisen  a  principle  of  safety,  that,  superior  to  all 
attacks,  shall  survive  through  ages,  to  which  even  our  posterity  shall  look 
forward  !  Compare  the  situation  of  England  with  her  condition  even  at  the 
beginning  of  the  last  campaign,  much  more  with  her  condition  at  the  renewal 
of  the  war.  Were  we  not  then  threatened  by  the  aggressions  of  an  enemy 
even  upon  our  own  shores  ;  were  we  not  then  trembling  for  the  safety  and 
sanctity  even  of  our  homes  ?  Now  contemplate  Wellington  encamped  on  the 
Bidassoa  !  I  know  that  a  sickly  sensibility  prevails  abroad,  which  leads 
some  to  doubt  whether  the  advance  of  Lord  Wellington  was  not  rash  and  pre- 
cipitate. Of  the  political  expediency  of  that  advance  I  can  entertain  but  one 
opinion:  I  cannot  enter  into  that  refinement .which  induces  those  who  affect 
to  know  much,  to  hesitate  upon  the  subject ;  I  cannot  look  with  regret  at  a 
British  army  encamped  upon  the  fertile  plains  of  France:  I  cannot  believe 
that  any  new  grounds  for  apprehension  are  raised  by  an  additional  excitement 
being  afforded  to  the  irritability  of  the  French  people:  I  foresee  no  disadvan- 
tage resulting  from  entering  the  territories  of  our  enemy,  not  as  the  con- 
quered but  the  conquerors  :  I  cannot  believe  that  tkere  are  any  so  weak  as  to 
imagine  that  England  wishes  to  maintain  a  position  within  the  heart  of  the 
enemy's  country,  or  that  Spain  will  attempt  to  extend  her  dominion  beyond 
that  vast  chain  of  impregnable  mountains  that  seem  to  form  her  natural 
boundary.  What  is  the  fact?  The  Portuguese  are  now  looking  upon  the 
74  zz* 


570  APPENDIX. 

walls  of  Bayonne,  "that  circles  in  those  wolves"  which  would  have  devas- 
tated their  capital ;  the  Portuguese  now  behold,  planted  on  the  towers  of 
Bayonne,  that  standard  which  their  enemy  would  have  made  to  float  upon  the 
walls  of  Lisbon.  I  cannot  think  it  a  matter  of  regret  that  Spaniards  are  now 
recovering,  from  the  grasp  of  an  enemy  on  his  own  shores,  that  diadem  which 
was  stripped  from  the  brow  of  the  Bourbons,  to  be  pocketed  by  an  usurper. 
I  cannot  think  it  a  matter  of  regret  that  England,  formerly  threatened  with 
invasion,  is  now  the  invader — that  France,  instead  of  England,  is  the  scene 
of  conflict : 

" Ultro  Inachias  venisset  ad  urbes 

Dardanus,  et  versis  lugeret  Graecia  fatis." 

I  cannot  think  all  this  matter  of  regret ;  and  of  those  who  believe  that  the 
nation  or  myself  are  blinded  by  our  successes,  I  entreat  that  they  will  leave 
me  to  my  delusion,  and  keep  their  philosophy  to  themselves.  There  are 
other  observations,  growing  not  only  out  of  the  proceedings  of  the  last  year, 
but  since  the  commencement  of  the  war,  that  to  my  mind  are  highly  con- 
soling. It  is  a  fact  acknowledged  by  all,  that  our  enemy,  who  has  enslaved 
the  press,  and  made  it  contribute  so  importantly  to  his  own  purposes  of  ambi- 
tion, at  various  periods,  during  the  hostilities,  has  endeavoured  to  impress 
upon  all  those  who  are  likely  to  be  our  allies,  a  notion,  that  Great  Britain 
only  fought  to  secure  her  own  interest,  that  her  views  were  completely  selfish. 
That  illusion  is  now  destroyed,  and  the  designs  of  this  country  are  vindicated 
by  recent  events.  We  call  on  all  the  powers  with  whom  we  are  at  war,  to 
do  us  justice  in  this  respect:  above  all,  we  claim  it  of  America,  with  which, 
as  much  as  any  man,  I  wish  for  reconciliation.  If  she  were  now  hesitating 
and  wavering,  which  of  the  two  great  contending  parties  she  should  join, 
would  not  the  conduct  of  England  now  decide  the  doubt?  I  ask  her  to 
review  her  own,  and  the  policy  of  this  country,  and  to  acknowledge  that  we 
are  deserving,  not  only  of  her  confidence,  but  of  the  support  of  mankind. 
Now  she  can  behold  Bonaparte  in  his  naked  deformity,  stripped  of  the  false 
glory  which  success  had  cast  around  him — the  spell  of  his  invincibility  is 
now  dissolved — she  can  now  look  at  him  without  that  awe  which  an  uninter- 
rupted series  of  victories  had  created.  Were  she  now  to  survey  him  as  he  is, 
what  would  be  the  Tesult?  She  would  trace  him  by  the  desolation  of  em- 
pires, and  the  dismemberment  of  states;  she  would  see  him  pursuing  his 
course  over  the  ruins  of  men  and  of  things  :  slavery  to  the  people,  and  de- 
struction to  commerce — hostility  to  literature,  to  light,  and  life,  were  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  he  acted.  His  object  was,  to  extinguish  patriotism,  and  to 
confound  allegiance — to  darken  as  well  as  to  enslave — to  roll  back  the  tide  of 
civilization — to  barbarize,  as  well  as  to  desolate  mankind.  Then  let  America 
turn  from  this  disgusting  picture,  these  scenes  of  bloodshed  and  horror,  and 
compare  with  them  the  effect  of  British  interference  !  She  will  see  that 
wherever  this  country  has  exerted  herself,  it  has  been  to  raise  the  fallen  and 
to  support  the  falling — to  raise,  not  to  degrade  the  national  character — to 
rouse  the  sentiments  of  patriotism  which  tyranny  had  silenced — to  enlighten, 
to  reanimate,  to  liberate.  Great  Britain  has  resuscitated  Spain,  and  recreated 
Portugal.  Germany  is  now  a  nation  as  well  as  a  name,  and  all  these  glorious 
effects  have  been  produced  by  the  efforts  and  by  the  example  of  our  country. 
If  to  be  the  deliverers  of  Europe;  if  to  have  raised  our  own  national  charac- 
ter, not  upon  the  ruins  of  other  kingdoms  ;  if  to  meet  dangers  without  shrink- 
ing, and  to  possess  courage  rising  with  difficulties  be  admirable,  surely  we 
may  not  unreasonably  hope  for  the  applause  of  the  world.  If  we  have  founded 
our^trength  upon  a  rock,  and  possess  the  implicit  confidence  of  those  allies 
we  have  succoured  when  they  seemed  beyond  relief,  then,  I  say,  that  our  ex- 
ertions during  the  last  year,  all  our  efforts  during  the  war,  are  cheaply  pur- 
chased.    If  we  have  burdened  ourselves,  we  have  relieved  others,  and  we 


APPENDIX.  571 

have  the  inward,  the  soul-felt,  the  proud  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  a  selfish 
charge  is  that  which,  with  the  faintest  shadow  of  justice,  cannot  be  brought 
against  us. 

NEGOTIATION    RELATIVE    TO    SPAIN. APRIL   14,  1824. 

With  regard  to  the  independence  of  the  Spanish  colonies  in  America,  he 
also  wished  to  say  a  few  words  by  way  of  explanation.  Undoubtedly  it  would 
have  been  much  more  agreeable  to  him  not  to  be  called  upon  to  give  an  expla- 
nation upon  an  event  which  might  only  be  contingent.  Unfortunately,  how- 
ever, no  choice  was  left  him  at  the  present  moment.  As  long  as  peace  pre- 
vailed on  the  continent,  and  Spain  had  no  enemy  in  Europe  to  contend  with, 
so  long  it  was  a  matter  of  discretion  with  the  British  government,  whether  it 
would  or  would  not  call  the  attention  of  Spain  to  the  undeniable  fact,  that  she 
had  lost  all  her  influence  in  her  American  provinces — that  all  her  efforts  to 
regain  it  have  been,  and  still  were,  useless  and  ineffectual ;  and  that  her  wisest 
policy  was  to  enter,  as  soon  as  possible,  into  an  accommodation  with  them — an 
accommodation  founded,  indeed,  upon  the  basis  of  recognising  their  indepen- 
dence, but  qualified  with  any  advantages  which  the  mother  country  might 
think  proper  to  stipulate,  and  the  colonies  in  return  to  grant.  Indeed,  advice 
to  that  effect  had  already  been  given  to  her  by  this  country.  We  had  told  her 
that  we  should  ask  of  her  colonies  no  commercial  advantages,  as  we  conceived 
the  superiority  should  be  reserved  to  her  as  the  mother  country  ;  and  all 
that  we  were  inclined  to  demand  was,  that  we  should  be  placed  in  the  same 
situation  with  other  favoured  nations.  More  than  once  it  had  been  hinted  to 
us,  that  our  good  offices  between  Spain  and  her  colonies  would  be  favourably 
received  by  the  mother  country.  The  answer  which  had  been  invariably 
returned  to  such  applications  was,  that  we  were  willing  to  interfere  with  our 
good  offices,  if  our  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  colonies  were  not 
to  be  made  determinable  on  the  issue  of  the  negotiations.  At  present,  how- 
ever, the  case  was  entirely  changed.  As  Spain  had  now  an  active  and  power- 
ful European  enemy,  it  became  necessary  for  England  to  declare  in  what  light 
she  looked  upon  the  struggling  provinces  of  South  America :  for  as  Spain 
still  retained  the  dominion  dejure  over  them,  though  she  had  lost  the  domi- 
nion de  facto  ,■  as  France  might  send  forth  her  fleets  and  armies  to  seize  and 
conquer  them  ;  and  as,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  arrangements  might  be 
made  between  the  two  nations  regarding  the  conquest  or  the  cession  of  them, 
the  British  government  had  felt  itself  called  upon  to  state,  that  it  considered 
the  separation  of  the  colonies  from  Spain  to  have  been  effected  to  such  a  de- 
gree, that  it  would  not  tolerate  for  an  instant  any  cession  which  Spain  might 
make  of  colonies  over  which  she  did  not  exercise  a  direct  and  positive  influence. 
To  such  a  declaration  the  British  government  had  at  last  been  forced.  With- 
out staying  to  examine  whether  it  had  been  made  prematurely  or  not,  he  would 
once  more  repeat,  that  to  such  a  declaration  we  had  at  length,  by  necessity, 
been  driven,  and  that  the  justice  and  propriety  of  it  had  not  yet  been  disputed 
by  either  party. 

FOREIGN     ENLISTMENT    BILL. APRIL   16,   1823. 

Good  God  !  is  it  to  become  a  maxim  with  this  country  that  she  is  ever  to  be 
a  belligerant.'?  Is  she  never,  under  any  possible  state  of  circumstances,  to 
remain  neutral  ?  If  this  proposition  be  good  for  any  thing,  it  must  run  to  this 
extent — that  our  position,  insulated  as  it  is  from  all  the  rest  of  the  world, 
moves  us  so  far  from  the  scene  of  continental  warfare,  that  we  ought  always 
to  be  belligerant — that  we  are  bound  to  counteract  the  designs  of  Pro- 
vidence, to  reject  the  advantages  of  nature,  and  to  render  futile  and 
erroneous  the  description  of  the  poet,  who  has  said  to  our  honour 
that  we  were  less  prone  to  war  and  tumult,  on  account  of  our  happy  situa- 


572  APPENDIX. 

tion,  than  the  neighbouring  nations  that  lie  conterminous  with  one  an- 
other. But  wherefore  this  dread  of  a  neutrality  1  If  gentlemen  look  to  the 
page  of  history,  they  will  find  that  for  centuries  past,  whenever  there  has  been 
a  war  in  Europe,  we  have  almost  always  been  belligerant.  The  fact  is  un- 
doubtedly so;  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  lay  it  down  as  a  principle,  that  if,  at 
the  beginning  of  a  war,  we  should  happen  to  maintain  a  species  of  neutrality, 
it  was  an  unnatural  thing  that  we  should  do  so.  Gentlemen  say,  that  we  must 
be  drawn  into  a  war,  sooner  or  later.  Why,  then,  I  answer,  let  it  be  later.  I 
say,  if  we  are  to  be  drawn  into  a  war,  let  us  be  drawn  into  it  on  grounds  clearly 
British.  I  do  not  say — God  forbid  I  should — that  it  is  no  part  of  the  duty 
of  Great  Britain  to  protect  what  is  termed  the  balance  of  power,  and  to  aid 
the  weak  against  the  insults  of  the  strong.  I  say,  on  the  contrary,  that  to  do 
so  is  her  bounden  duty ;  but  I  affirm  also,  that  we  must  take  care  to  do  our 
duty  to  ourselves.  The  first  condition  of  engaging  in  any  war — the  sine  qua 
non  of  every  such  undertaking — is,  that  the  war  must  be  just;  the  second, 
that  being  just  in  itself,  we  can  also  with  justice  engage  in  it;  and  the  third, 
that  being  just  in  its  nature,  and  it  being  possible  for  us  justly  to  embark  in  it, 
we  can  so  interfere  without  detriment  or  prejudice  to  ourselves.  I  contend 
that  he  is  a  visionary  politician  who  leaves  this  last  condition  out  of  the  ques- 
tion ;  and  I  say  further,  that  though  the  glorious  abandonment  of  it  may  sound 
well  in  the  generous  speech  of  an  irresponsible  orator — with  the  safety  of  a 
nation  upon  his  lips,  and  none  of  the  responsibility  upon  his  shoulders — it  is 
matter  deeply  to  be  considered  ;  and  that  the  minister  who  should  lay  it  out  of 
his  view,  in  calling  on  the  country  to  undertake  a  war,  would  well  deserve  that 
universal  censure  and  reprobation  with  which  the  noble  lord  opposite  has  this 
night  menaced  me.  If  it  be  wise  for  a  government,  though  it  cannot  prevent 
an  actual  explosion,  to  endeavour  to  circumscribe  the  limits,  and  to  lessen  the 
duration  of  a  war,  then  I  say  that  the  position  we  have  taken  in  the  present 
instance  is  of  more  probable  efficacy  than  that  in  which  we  should  have  stood 
had  we  suffered  ourselves  to  be  drawn  into  a  participation  in  the  contest. 
Participation,  did  I  say  1  Sir  !  is  there  any  man  who  hears  me — is  there  any 
man  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  country  for  the  last  twenty  years,  who 
does  not  know  the  way  in  which  Great  Britain  has  been  accustomed  to  parti- 
cipate in  a  war  1  Do  not  gentlemen  know  that  if  we  now  enter  into  a  war,  we 
must  take  the  whole  burden  of  it  upon  ourselves,  and  conduct  the  whole  force 
and  exertions  of  the  peninsula  1  But,  supposing  such  to  be  our  course,  how 
different  must  be  our  situation,  as  compared  with  former  periods.  When  we 
last  became  the  defenders  of  Spain,  we  fought  for  and  with  a  united  people. 
What  would  be  the  case  at  present?  Any  interference  on  our  parts  in  favour 
of  Spain,  must  commence  with  an  attempt  to  unite  contending  factions,  and 
to  stimulate  men  of  opposite  interests  and  opposite  feelings,  to  one  grand  and 
simultaneous  effort.  Now,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  man  who  would 
undertake  to  do  this  under  present  circumstances,  must  either  be  possessed  of 
supernatural  means  of  information,  or  of  a  hardihood  which  I  may  envy,  but 
shall  not  attempt  to  imitate.  I  say  that  those  men  will  not  consult  the  true  dig- 
nity of  the  country,  who,  finding  fault  with  the  part  we  have  adopted,  wish 
to  indemnify  themselves  by  endeavouring  to  make  us  perform  that  part  amiss. 
Our  course  is  neutrality — strict  neutrality;  and,  in  the  name  of  God,  let  us 
adhere  to  it.  If  you  dislike  that  course — if  you  think  it  injurious  to  the  honour 
or  interests  of  the  country — drive  from  their  places  those  neutral  ministers 
who  have  adopted  it ;  but  until  you  are  prepared  to  declare  war,  you  are  bound 
to  adhere  to  and  to  act  upon  the  system  which  ministers  have  laid  down. 

I  stated  a  few  evenings  ago  that  we  could  have  no  difficulty  in  the  course 
which  we  had  to  pursue,  in  observance  of  a  strict  neutrality.  We  have  spent 
much  time  in  teaching  other  powers  the  nature  of  a  strict  neutrality  ;  and 
generally  speaking,  we  found  them  most  reluctant  scholars.  All  I  now  call 
upon  the  house  to  do,  is  to  adopt  the  same  course  which  it  has  recommended 


APPENDIX.  5"3 

to  neutral  powers  upon  former  occasions.  If  I  wished  for  a  guide  in  a  system 
of  neutrality,  I  should  take  that  laid  down  by  America,  in  the  days  of  the  pre- 
sidency of  Washington,  and  the  secretaryship  of  Jefferson. 

ADDRESS    ON    THE    KING'S    SPEECH. 1824. 

He  knew  that  it  was  maintained  by  some,  that  England  ought  to  set  her- 
self up  as  a  barrier  for  all  Europe,  against  principles  of  a  despotic  tendency  ; 
but  he  could  not  be  persuaded  that  it  was  the  policy  of  England  to  do  lightly 
any  act  which  might  plunge  herself  and  all  Europe  into  a  bloody  and  unceas- 
ing war.     Of  all  the  wars — and  unhappily  we  had  experienced  but  too  many 
varieties  of  them — of  all  the  wars  which  we  had  seen,  and  which  had  brought 
desolation  in   their  train,  the  wars  of  opinion  had  been  decidedly  the  most 
fatal ;  and  a  single  spark,  flashing  unhappily  from  the  hasty  zeal  of  England, 
might  light  up  a  conflagration  on  the  continent,  which  no  after  exertions  could 
extinguish — might  lead  to  a  contest  of  opinions  and  principles  which  would 
divide  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  and  only  terminate,  probably,  with  the  total 
destruction  of  one  of  the  contending  factions.     Was  this,  then,  an  object  for 
Eno-land  to  aim  at  ?     Was  this  to  be  laid  down  as  the  intent  by  which  minis- 
ters were  to  regulate  their  conduct'?     Or,  might  they  be  allowed  to  say,  that 
their  object  was  peace,  be  the  component  parts  of  that  peace  more  or  less 
perfect] — to  see  England  moving  steadily  on  in  her  own  orbit,  without  look- 
ing too  nicely  to  the  conduct  of  the  powers  in  alliance  with  her — to  see  her 
content  with  her  own  glory,  and  by  that  glory  exciting  other  nations  to  arrive 
at  the  same  advantages  which  her  peculiar  system  had  bestowed  upon  her; 
but  not,  by  a  wild  crusade  or  endeavour,  to  force  those  advantages  upon  free 
countries,  converting  blessings  into  curses  as  respected  them,  and  courting 
danger  and  difficulty  as  regarded  herself?     It  was  this  course  which  he  took 
to  be  the  true  policy  of  England.     It  was  with  this  view  to  peace,  while 
peace  might  be  maintained,  that  his  majesty's  government  had  acted,  and 
were  prepared  to  act.     But  it  did  not  follow,  because  they  forbore  to  seek  for 
difference,  that  when  it  came,  it  would  not  find  them  on  the  alert;  or  that  the 
strength  which  had  slumbered  would  be  the  less  effective  when  called  into 
action. 

ON   THE    KING'S    SPEECH. FEB.   15,   1825. 

I  now  turn  to  that  other  part  of  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman's 
speech,  in  which  he  acknowledges  his  acquiescence  in  the  passages  of  the 
address  echoing  the  satisfaction  felt  at  the  success  of  the  liberal  commercial 
principles  adopted  by  this  country,  and  at  the  steps  taken  for  recognising  the 
new  states  of  America.  It  does  happen,  however,  that  the  honourable  and 
learned  gentlemen  being  not  unfrequently  a  speaker  in  this  house,  nor  very 
concise  in  his  speeches,  and  touching  occasionally,  as  he  proceeds,  on  almost 
every  subject  within  the  range  of  his  imagination,  as  well  as  making  some 
observations  on  the  matter  in  hand — and  having,  at  different  periods  proposed 
and  supported  every  innovation  of  which  the  law  or  constitution  of  the  country 
is  susceptible — it  is  impossible  to  innovate,  without  appearing  to  borrow  from 
him.  Either,  therefore,  we  must  remain  for  ever  absolutely  locked  up  as  in 
a  northern  winter,  or  we  must  break  our  way  out  by  some  mode  already  sug- 

fested  by  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman,  and  then  he  cries  out,  "  Ah, 
was  there  before  you  !  That  is  what  I  told  you  to  do ;  but,  as  you  would 
not  do  it  then,  you  have  no  righl  to  do  it  now."  In  Queen  Anne's  reign 
there  lived  a  very  sage  and  able  critic,  named  Dennis,  who,  in  his  old  age, 
was  the  prey  of  a  strange  fancy,  that  he  had  himself  written  all  the  good 
things  in  all  the  good  plays  that  were  acted.  Every  good  passage  he  met 
with  in  any  author,  he  insisted  was  his  own.     "  It  is  none  of  his,"  Dennis 


574  APPENDIX. 

would  always  say  ;  "  no,  it's  mine  !"  He  went  one  day  to  see  a  new  tragedy. 
Nothing  particularly  good  to  his  taste  occurred,  till  a  scene  in  which  a  great 
storm  was  represented.  As  soon  as  he  heard  the  thunder  rolling  over  head, 
he  exclaimed,  "That's  my  thunder!"  So  it  is  with  the  honourable  and 
learned  gentleman  ;  it's  all  his  thunder.  It  will  henceforth  be  impossible  to 
confer  any  boon,  or  make  any  innovation,  but  he  will  claim  it  as  his  thunder. 
But  it  is  due  to  him  to  acknowledge  that  he  does  not  claim  every  thing;  he 
will  be  content  with  the  exclusive  merit  of  the  liberal  measures  relating  to 
trade  and  commerce.  Not  desirous  of  violating  his  own  principles,  by  claim- 
ing a  monopoly  of  foresight  and  wisdom,  he  kindly  throws  overboard  to  my 
honourable  and  learned  friend  (Sir  J.  Mackintosh)  near  him,  the  praise  of 
South  America.  I  should  like  to  know  whether,  in  some  degree,  this  also  is 
not  his  thunder.  He  thinks  it  right  itself;  but  lest  we  should  be  too  proud, 
if  he  approved  our  conduct  in  toto,  he  thinks  it  wrong  in  point  of  time.  I 
differ  from  him  essentially;  for  if  1  pique  myself  on  any  thing  in  this  affair, 
it  is  the  time.  That,  at  some  time  or  other,  states  which  had  separated  them- 
selves from  the  mother  country,  should  or  should  not  be  admitted  to  the  rank 
of  independent  nations,  is  a  proposition  to  which  no  possible  dissent  could  be 
given.  The  whole  question  was  one  of  time  and  mode.  There  were  two 
modes  :  one  a  reckless  and  headlong  course,  by  which  we  might  have  reached 
our  object  at  once,  but  at  the  expense  of  drawing  upon  us  consequences  not 
highly  to  be  estimated  ;  the  other  was  more  strictly  guarded  in  point  of  prin- 
ciple ;  so  that,  while  we  pursued  our  own  interests,  we  took  care  to  give  no 
just  cause  of  offence  to  other  powers. 

ON    UNLAWFUL    SOCIETIES    IN    IRELAND. FEB.   15,   1825. 

In  the  next  place,  are  we  prepared  to  say  that  these  and  other  acts  of  the 
Catholic  Association  have  no  tendency  to  excite  and  inflame  animosities  1  I 
affirm,  without  hesitation,  that  they  have  directly  that  tendency;  and  in  sup- 
port of  this  affirmation  I  must  beg  leave  to  recur,  however  solemnly  warned 
against  the  recurrence,  to  an  expression  which  I  was  the  first  to  bring  to  the 
notice  of  the  house,  but  which  has  been  since  the  subject  of  repeated  animad- 
version ;  I  mean  the  adjuration  "  by  the  hate  you  bear  to  Orangemen,"  which 
was  used  by  the  association  in  their  address  to  the  Catholics  of  Ireland. 

Various  and  not  unamusing  have  been  the  attempts  of  gentlemen  who  take 
the  part  of  the  association,  to  get  rid  of  this  most  unlucky  phrase,  or  at  least 
to  dilute  and  attenuate  its  obvious  and  undeniable  meaning.  It  is  said  to  be 
unfair  to  select  one  insulated  expression  as  indicating  the  general  spirit  of  the 
proceedings  of  any  public  body.  Granted  ; — if  the  expression  had  escaped  in 
the  heat  of  debate,  if  it  had  been  struck  out  by  the  collision  of  argument,  if  it 
had  been  thrown  forth  in  haste,  and  had  been  upon  reflection  recalled  :  but  if 
the  words  are  found  in  a  document  which  was  prepared  with  care  and  consi- 
dered with  deliberation — if  it  is  notorious  that  they  were  pointed  out  as  ob- 
jectionable when  they  were  first  proposed  by  the  framers  of  the  address,  but 
were  nevertheless  upon  argument  retained — surely  we  are  not  only  justified  in 
receiving  them  as  an  indication  at  least  of  the  animus  of  those  who  used 
them ;  but  we  should  be  rejecting  the  best  evidence  of  that  animus,  if  we 
passed  over  so  well  weighed  a  manifestation  of  it. 

Were  not  this  felt  by  honourable  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  to  be  true, 
we  should  not  have  seen  them  so  anxious  to  put  forced  and  fanciful  construc- 
tions on  a  phrase  which  is  as  plain  in  its  meaning  as  any  which  the  hand  of 
man  ever  wrote  or  the  eye  of  man  ever  saw.  The  first  defence  of  this  phrase 
was  by  an  honourable  member  from  Ireland,  who  told  us  that  the  words  do 
not  convey  the  same  meaning  in  the  Irish  language,  which  we  in  England 
naturally  attach  to  them.  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  conversant  with  the  Irish 
language ;  and  must  therefore  leave  that  apology  to  stand,  for  what  it  maybe 


APPENDIX.  575 

worth,  on  the  honourable  gentleman's  erudition  and  authority.  I  will  not  fol- 
low every  other  gentleman  who  has  strained  his  faculties  to  explain  away 
this  unfortunate  expression ;  but  will  come  at  once  to  my  honourable  and 
learned  friend,  (Sir  James  Mackintosh,)  the  member  for  Knaresborough,  to 
whom  the  palm  in  this  contest  of  ingenuity  must  be  conceded  by  all  his  com- 
petitors. My  honourable  friend  has  expended  abundant  research  and  subtilty 
upon  this  inquiry,  and  having  resolved  the  phrase  into  its  elements  in  the 
crucible  of  his  philosophical  mind,  has  produced  it  to  us  purified  and  refined 
to  a  degree  that  must  command  the  admiration  of  all  who  take  delight  in 
metaphysical  alchemy.  My  honourable  and  learned  friend  began  by  telling 
us,  that,  after  all,  hatred  is  no  bad  thing  in  itself.  "  I  hate  a  tory,"  says  my 
honourable  friend — "and  another  man  hates  a  cat;  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  he  would  hunt  down  the  cat,  or  I  the  tory."  Nay,  so  far  from  it — hatred, 
if  it  be  properly  managed,  is,  according  to  my  honourable  friend's  theory,  no 
bad  preface  to  a  rational  esteem  and  affection.  It  prepares  its  votaries  for  a 
reconciliation  of  differences — for  lying  down  with  their  most  inveterate  ene- 
mies, like  the  leopard  and  the  kid,  in  the  vision  of  the  prophet. 

This  dogma  is  a  little  startling,  but  it  is  not  altogether  without  precedent. 
It  is  borrowed  from  a  character  in  a  play  which  is,  I  dare  say,  as  great  a 
favourite  with  my  learned  friend  as  it  is  with  me — I  mean  the  comedy  of  The 
Rivals ; — in  which  Mrs.  Maluprop,  giving  a  lecture  on  the  subject  of  marriage 
to  her  niece,  (who  is  unreasonable  enough  to  talk  of  liking  as  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  such  a  union,)  says,  "  What  have  you  to  do  with  your  likings 
and  your  preferences,  child  1  depend  upon  it,  it  is  safest  to  begin  with  a  little 
aversion.  I  am  sure  T  hated  your  poor  dear  uncle  like  a  blackamoor  before 
we  were  married  ;  and  yet  you  know,  my  dear,  what  a  good  wife  I  made 
him."     Such  is  my  learned  friend's  argument  to  a  hair. 

But  finding  that  this  doctrine  did  not  appear  to  go  down  with  the  house  so 
glibly  as  he  had  expected,  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  presently  changed 
his  tack  ;  and  put  forward  a  theory,  which,  whether  for  novelty  or  for  beauty, 
I  pronounce  to  be  incomparable ;  and,  in  short,  as  wanting  nothing  to  recom- 
mend  it   but  a  slight  foundation  in  truth.     "  True  philosophy,"  says  my 
honourable  friend,  "  will  always  contrive  to  lead  men  to  virtue  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  their  conflicting  vices.     The  virtues,  where  more  than  one  exist, 
may  live  harmoniously  together ;  but  the  vices  bear  mortal  antipathy  to  one 
another,  and  therefore  furnish  to  the  moral  engineer  the  power  by  which  he 
can  make  each  keep  the  other  under  control."     Admirable ! — but,  upon  this 
doctrine,  the  poor  man  who  has  but  one  single  vice  must  be  in  a  very  bad 
way.     No  fulcrum,  no  moral  power  for  effecting   his  cure.     Whereas   his 
more  fortunate  neighbour,  who  has  two  or  more  vices  in  his  composition,  is 
in  a  fair  way  of  becoming  a  very  virtuous  member  of  society.     I  wonder  how 
my  learned  friend  would  like  to  have  this  doctrine  introduced  into  his  domes- 
tic establishment.     For  instance,  suppose  that  I  discharge  a  servant  because  he 
is  addicted  to  liquor,  I  could  not  venture  to  recommend  him  to  my  honourable 
and  learned  friend  ;  it  might  be  the  poor  man's  only  fault,  and  therefore  clearly 
incorrigible;  but  if  I  had  the  good  fortune  to  find  out  that  he  was  also  ad- 
dicted to  steal iu'_ri  might  I  not,  with  a  safe  conscience,  send  him  to  my  learned 
friend  with  a  very  strong  recommendation,  saying — I  send  you  a  man  whom 
I  know  to  be  a  drunkard  :   but  I  am  happy  to  assure  you  he  is  also  a  thief: 
you  cannot  do  better  than  employ  him  :  you  will  make  his  drunkenness  coun- 
teract his  thievery,  and  no  doubt   you  will  bring  him  out  of  the  conflict  a  very 
moral  personage.     My  honourable  and  learned  friend,  however,  not  content 
with  laying  down   these  new  rules  for  reformation,  thought  it  right  to  exem- 
plify them  in  his  own  person,  and  like  Pope's  Longinui,  to  be  "himself  the 
great  sublime  he  drew."     My  Learned  friend  tells  us  that  Dr.  Johnson  was 
what  he  (Dr.  Johnson  himself)  called  a  good  hater  ,■  and  that  among  the  qua- 
lities which  he  hated  most  were  two  which  rny  honourable  friend  unite.*  in 


576  APPENDIX. 

his  own  person — that  of  Whig  and  that  of  Scotchman.  "  So  that,"  says  my 
honourable  friend,  "  if  Dr.  Johnson  were  alive,  and  were  to  meet  me  at  the 
club,  of  which  he  was  a  founder,  and  of  which  I  am  now  an  unworthy  mem- 
ber, he  would  probably  break  up  the  meeting  rather  than  sit  it  out  in  such 
society." — No,  sir,  not  so.  My  honourable  and  learned  friend  forgets  his  own 
theory.  If  he  had  been  only  a  Whig,  or  only  a  Scotchman,  Dr.  Johnson 
might  have  treated  him  as  he  apprehends  ;  but  being  both,  the  great  moralist 
would  have  said  to  my  honourable  friend,  "  Sir,  you  are  too  much  of  a  Whig 
to  be  a  good  Scotchman ;  and,  sir,  you  are  too  much  of  a  Scotchman  to  be  a 
good  Whig."  It  is  no  doubt  from  the  collision  of  these  two  vices  in  my 
learned  friend's  person,  that  he  has  become  what  I,  and  all  who  have  the  hap- 
piness of  meeting  him  at  the  club,  find  him — an  entirely  faultless  character. 

For  my  own  part,  however,  I  must  say,  that  I  cannot  see  any  hope  of  ob- 
taining the  great  moral  victory  which  my  learned  friend  has  anticipated — of 
winning  men  to  the  practice  of  virtue  by  adjurations  addressed  to  their 
peculiar  vices.  I  believe,  after  all  these  ratiocinations  and  refinements,  we 
must  come  back  to  the  plain  truth,  which  is  felt  even  while  it  is  denied — that 
the  phrase,  "  by  the  hate  you  bear  to  Orangemen,"  is  an  indefensible  phrase ; 
that  it  is  at  least — what  alone  I  am  contending  that  it  is — incontestable  evi- 
dence of  the  allegation  that  the  Catholic  Association  does  excite  animosities 
in  Ireland.  It  is  an  expression  calculated  to  offend,  provoke,  and  exasperate 
the  Orangemen ;  however  palatable  to  those  whose  hatred  of  Orangemen  it 
predicates,  and,  to  say  the  least,  does  not  disapprove. 

ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  SILK  TRADE. FEB.  24,  1826. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  sir,  that  under  cover  of  the  measure  which  the  honour- 
able gentleman  opposite  (Mr.  Ellice)  has  thought  proper  to  bring  forward — 
and  that  he  has  brought  it  forward  in  the  sincerity  of  his  heart,  and  with  the 
view  solely  to  the  relief  of  the  sufferers  whose  cause  he  advocated,  the  house 
must  feel  convinced — but  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  under  cover  of  that  motion, 
an  opportunity  has  been  taken,  not  by  the  honourable  member,  but  by  others, 
to  attack  the  commercial  regulations  now  in  progress ;  measures  more  seri- 
ously deliberated  upon,  and  introduced  with  the  more  universal  consent  of 
all  those  whose  judgments  were  likely  to  be  best  enlightened  on  such  mat- 
ters, than  any  other  acts  of  our  public  policy  within  my  recollection. 

The  honourable  gentleman  who  introduced  the  motion  was  of  opinion,  that 
it  was  advisable  to  adopt  a  sound  and  settled  system  of  commercial  policy. 
But  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  who  seconded  the  motion,  (Mr.  J. 
Williams,)  addressed  you  with  a  very  different  feeling,  and  in  a  very  different 
spirit.  That  honourable  and  learned  member,  departing  from  those  profes- 
sional topics,  in  descanting  upon  which  he  had  so  often  arrested  the  attention 
of  the  house,  disported  himself  upon  this,  to  him  novel  subject,  certainly  with 
all  the  confidence  of  a  novice,  but  at  the  same  time  in  a  manner  which  evinced 
a  total  incapability  of  using  his  weapons,  as  he  was  wont  to  do  in  his  more 
practised  exhibitions.  The  honourable  and  learned  member  has  not  disdained 
to  call  to  his  aid,  in  the  course  of  his  address,  all  the  vulgar  topics  of  ribald 
invective  with  which  my  right  honourable  friend  has  been  assailed  else- 
where ;  and  in  the  spirit  of  these  attacks  has  attributed  to  him  feelings  un- 
known to  his  heart,  and  sentiments  utterly  alien  from  his  nature.  And  why, 
I  ask,  has  my  right  honourable  friend  been  subjected  to  these  attacks  ?  Be- 
cause, sir,  with  an  industry  and  intelligence  never  exceeded,  and  rarely 
equalled,  he  has  devoted  his  daily  labour  and  his  nightly  toil  to  the  improve- 
ment of  the  commercial  system  of  his  country.  Sir,  when  this  attack  was 
made,  the  house  felt,  as  one  man,  the  injustice  done  to  my  right  honourable 
friend  ;  and  if,  in  addition  to  the  conscious  rectitude  of  his  own  mind,  and  to 
the  gratifying  acknowledgment  by  this  house,  of  his  splendid  exertions,  he 


APPENDIX. 


577 


wished  for  another  gratification,  he  had  it  in  the  universal  feeling  of  indigna- 
tion at  the  attempt  so  wantonly  made  to  lower  him  and  his  measures  in  the 
public  opinion.  And  then,  forsooth,  came  the  assertion  that  nothing  personal 
was  meant.  Nothing  personal,  sir !  Did  we  not  hear  mention  made  of  hard- 
hearted metaphysics,  and  of  the  malignity  of  the  devil?  Nothing  personal ! 
certainly  nothing  personal  to  the  devil — who,  by  the  way — and  it  is  a  curious 
coincidence — is,  according  to  an  old  proverb,  the  patron  saint  of  the  city  (Lin- 
coln) which  the  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  represents.  But  could 
any  one  fail  to  understand  that  the  fiend-like  malignity,  the  coldness  of  heart, 
the  apathy  of  feeling,  that  all  these  abstract  qualities,  which  the  learned  gen- 
tleman had  described  as  distinguishing  features  of  those  who  indulged  in 
abstract  speculations,  were  intended  by  the  learned  gentleman  to  be  embodied 
in  the  person  of  my  right  honourable  friend ;  qualities  especially  calculated 
to  render  a  man  contemptible  in  the  performance  of  his  public  duties,  and 
odious  in  the  eyes  of  his  fellow-citizens,  for  whose  benefit  those  duties  are 
discharged  1  These  topics,  sir,  are  as  vulgar  as  they  are  unjust.  Why  is  it 
to  be  supposed  that  the  application  of  philosophy — (for  I  will  use  that  odious 

word) why  was  it  to  be  supposed  that  to  apply  the  refinement  of  philosophy 

to  the  affairs  of  common  life,  indicates  obduracy  of  feeling  or  obtuseness  of 
sensibility'?  We  must  deal  with  the  affairs  of  men  on  abstract  principles, 
modified,  however,  of  course  according  to  times  and  circumstances.  Is  it  not 
the  doctrine  and  the  spirit  which  now  animate  those  who  persecute  my 
rio-ht  honourable  friend,  the  same  which,  in  former  times,  stirred  up  persecu- 
tion against  the  best  benefactors  of  mankind  1  Is  it  not  the  same  doctrine 
and  spirit  which  imbittered  the  life  of  Turgot  1  Is  it  not  a  doctrine  and  a 
spirit  such  as  this,  which  consigned  Galileo  to  the  dungeons  of  the  inquisi- 
tion ?  Is  it  not  a  doctrine  and  a  spirit  such  as  these  which  have,  at  all 
times,  been  at  work  to  stay  public  advancement,  and  to  roll  back  the  tide  of 
civilization?  A  doctrine  and  a  spirit  actuating  the  little  minds  of  men,  who, 
incapable  of  reaching  the  heights  from  which  alone  extended  views  of  human 
nature  can  be  taken,  console  and  revenge  themselves  by  calumniating  and 
misrepresenting  those  who  have  toiled  to  those  heights  for  the  advantage  of 
mankind. 

Sir,  I  am  not  to  learn  that  there  is  a  faction  in  the  country — I  mean  not  a 
political  faction — I  should,  perhaps,  rather  have  said  a  sect,  small  in  numbers 
and  powerless  in  might,  who  thinlc  that  all  advances  towards  improvement  are 
retropradations  towards  Jacobinism.  These  persons  seem  to  imagine  that, 
under  no  possible  circumstances,  can  an  honest  man  endeavour  to  keep  his 
country  upon  a  line  with  the  progress  of  political  knowledge,  and  to  adapt  its 
course  to  the  varying  circumstances  of  the  world.  Such  an  attempt  is  branded 
as  an  indication  of  mischievous  intentions,  as  evidence  of  a  design  to  sap  the 
foundations  of  the  greatness  of  the  country. 

Sir,  I  consider  it  to  be  the  duty  of  a  British  statesman,  in  internal  as  well 
as  external  affairs,  to  hold  a  middle  course  between  extremes;  avoiding  alike 
extravagances  of  despotism,  or  the  licentiousness  of  unbridled  freedom — re- 
conciling power  with  liberty  ;  not  adopting  hasty  or  ill-advised  experiments, 
or  pursuing  any  airy  and  unsubstantial  theories ;  but  not  rejecting,  neverthe- 
less, the  application  of  sound  and  wholesome  knowledge  to  practical  affairs, 
and  pressing,  with  sobriety  and  caution,  into  the  service  of  his  country  any 
generous  and  liberal  principles,  whose  excess,  indeed,  may  be  dangerous,  but 
whose  foundation  is  in  truth.  This,  sir,  in  my  mind,  is  the  true  conduct  of  a 
British  statesman  ;  but  they  who  resist  indiscriminately  all  improvement  as 
innovation,  may  find  themselves  compelled  at  last  to  submit  to  innovations 
although  they  are  not  improvements. 

My  right  honourable  friend  has  been  actuated  by  the  spirit  which  I  have 
endeavoured  to  describe.  Convinced  in  his  own  mind  of  the  justice  and  ex- 
pediency of  the  measure  which  he  has  proposed  for  the  improvement  of  our 

75  AAA 


57S  APPENDIX. 

commercial  system,  he  has  persuaded  the  house  to  legislate  in  that  sense; 
and,  as  the  fruits  of  that  legislation,  I  anticipate  increasing  prosperity  and 
growing  strength  to  the  country. 

Two  objections  have  been  stated  to  the  course  which  his  majesty's  minis- 
ters are  pursuing  under  the  guidance  of  my  right  honourable  friend  :  we  are 
charged  with  having  abandoned  the  principles  of  Mr.  Pitt,  and  of  having  bor- 
rowed a  leaf  from  the  book  of  Whig  policy.  If  the  latter  accusation  refers  to 
the  useful  and  honourable  support  which  we  have  received  on  questions  of 
commerce  from  some  of  those  who  are  habitually  our  antagonists  in  politics, 
I  have  only  to  admit  the  fact,  and  to  declare  the  satisfaction  which  I  derive 
from  it.  God  forbid,  sir,  that  I  should  withhold  due  praise  from  those  who, 
forgetting  political  animosities  and  the  vulgar  divisions  of  party,  have  concur- 
red with  us  in  attempting  to  do  public  good. 

But  if  it  is  meant  to  say  that  the  commercial  policy  which  we  recommend 
to  the  country  is  founded  on  the  principles  of  Whiggism,  history  proves  that 
proposition  to  be  untrue  :  I  mean  neither  praise  nor  blame  of  W  hig  or  Tory, 
in  adverting  to  matters  which  passed  long  before  the  political  existence  of  the 
present  generation;  but,  historically  speaking,  I  must  say,  that  freedom  of 
commerce  has,  in  former  times,  been  the  doctrine  rather  of  Tories  than  of 
"Whigs.  If  I  look  back,  for  instance,  to  the  transactions  between  this  country 
and  France,  the  only  commercial  treaty  which  I  can  find,  besides  that  Avhich 
was  signed  by  me  and  my  right  honourable  friend,  but  the  other  day,  since 
the  peace  of  Utrecht,  is  the  convention  of  1786.  With  respect  to  the  treaty, 
the  house  need  not  be  afraid  that  I  am  now  going  to  discuss  the  principles  of 
the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  But,  by  whom  was  the  convention  of  1786  proposed 
and  supported  1  By  Mr.  Pitt.  By  whom  was  it  opposed  1  By  Mr.  Fox.  I 
will  not  go  into  the  arguments  which  might  be  used  on  either  side.  I  enter 
not  into  the  question,  who  was  right  or  wrong.  I  mention  the  circumstance 
only  to  show  how  easily  facts  are  perverted  for  particular  purposes  of  vitupe- 
ration. It  is  an  old  adage,  that  when  a  man  wishes  to  beat  a  dog  he  has  no 
difficulty  in  finding  a  stick  ;  but  the  stick,  in  the  present  instance,  has  been 
unfortunately  chosen. 

Equally  false  are  the  grounds  of  the  charge  brought  against  us,  of  having 
deviated  from  the  principles  of  our  great  master.  Sir,  I  deny  that  we  have 
departed  from  the  general  principles  of  Mr.  Pitt.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  no 
man,  who  has  observed  the  signs  of  the  times,  can  have  failed  to  discover  in 
the  arguments  of  our  opponents,  upon  this  occasion,  a  secret  wish  to  renew 
the  bank  restriction ;  and  it  is  upon  that  point,  and  with  respect  to  measures 
leading  in  our  apprehension  to  that  point,  that  we  are  accused,  and  not  un- 
justly, in  differing  from  those  who  accuse  us.  We  are  charged  with  a  devia- 
tion from  the  principles  of  Mr.  Pitt,  because  we  declared  our  determination 
not  to  renew  an  expedient  which,  though  it  was  forced  upon  Mr.  Pitt  by  the 
particular  circumstances  of  the  times,  is  one  that  ought  not  to  be  dragged  into 
a  precedent.  It  never  surely  can  be  quoted  as  a  spontaneous  act  of  deliberate 
policy ;  and  it  was  an  act,  be  it  Temembered,  of  which  Mr.  Pitt  did  not  live 
to  witness  those  consequences  which  effectually  deter  his  successors  from  the 
repetition  of  it.  But  it  is  singular  to  remark  how  ready  some  people  are  to 
admire  in  a  great  man  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule  of  his  conduct. 
Such  perverse  worship  is  like  the  idolatry  of  barbarous  nations,  who  can  see 
the  noonday  splendour  of  the  sun  without  emotion  ;  but  who,  when  he  is  in 
eclipse,  come  forward  with  hymns  and  cymbals  to  adore  him.  Thus  there 
are  those  who  venerate  Mr.  Pitt  less  in  the  brightness  of  his  meridian  glory, 
than  under  his  partial  obscurations,  and  who  gaze  on  him  with  the  fondest 
admiration  when  he  has  accidentally  ceased  to  shine. 

My  admiration  "  on  this  side  only  of  idolatry"  of  that  great  man,  is  called 
forth  by  the  glorious  course  which  he  ran,  and  for  the  illumination  which  he 
shed  over  his  country.     But  I  do  not  think  it  the  duty  of  a  most  zealous  wor- 


APPENDIX.  579 

shipper  to  adopt  even  the  accidental  faults  of  the  illustrious  model  whom  we 
vainly  endeavour  to  imitate.  I  do  not  think  it  a  part  of  fealty  to  him  to  adopt, 
without  necessity,  measures  which  necessity  alone  forced  upon  him.  Tread- 
ing, with  unequal  pace,  in  his  steps,  I  do  not  think  it.  our  duty  to  select,  by  pre- 
ference, those  footmarks  in  which,  for  a  moment,  and  from  the  slipperiness  of 
the  times,  he  may  have  trodden  awry. 


COPY  OF  A  NOTE, 

Addressed  by  ihe  Right  Hon.  George  Canning,  his  Majesty's  Principal 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Jffairs,  to  the  Chevalier  De  Los  Rios, 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  his  most  Catholic  Majesty. 

Foreign-Office,  March  25. 
The  undersigned,  his  majesty's  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs,  is  commanded  by  his  sovereign  to  deliver  to  the  Chevalier  De  Los 
Rios,  for  the  purpose  of  being  transmitted  to  his  court,  the  following  reply  to 
the  official  note  addressed  by  his  excellency  M.  Zea  to  his  majesty's  charge 
d'affaires  at  Madrid,  on  the  21st  of  January. 

So  large  a  portion  of  the  official  note  of  M.  Zea  was  founded  upon  a  denial 
of  the  facts  which  had  been  reported  to  the  British  government,  with  respect 
to  the  state  of  the  several  countries  of  Spanish  America,  and  upon  an  anticipa- 
tion of  events  expected  by  the  court  of  Spain  to  take  place  in  those  countries, 
by  which  the  credibility  of  the  reports  transmitted  to  the  British  government 
would  be  effectually  disproved,  that  it  has  been  thought  advisable  to  await  the 
issue  of  the  expected  events  in  Spanish  America  rather  than  to  confront  evi- 
dence with  evidence,  and  to  discuss  probabilities  and  conjectures.  Of  that 
decisive  issue,  as  it  appears  to  be,  the  undersigned  is  directed  to  say,  that  it 
is  a  great  satisfaction  to  the  British  government  that  it  had  actually  taken 
place  before  the  intentions  of  the  British  government  towards  Spanish  Ame- 
rica were  announced.  Those  intentions,  therefore,  cannot  possibly  have  had 
the  slightest  influence  upon  the  result  of  the  war  in  Peru. 

With  this  single  observation  the  undersigned  is  directed  to  pass  over  all  that 
part  of  M.  Zea's  note  which  turns  upon  the  supposed  incorrectness  of  the 
information  on  which  the  decision  of  the  British  government  was  founded. 

The  questions  which  remain  to  be  examined  are,  whether  in  treating  with 
de  facto  governments,  now  established  beyond  the  danger  of  any  external 
assailment,  Great  Britain  has  violated  either  any  general  principle  of  interna- 
tional law,  or  any  positive  obligation  of  treaty. 

To  begin  with  the  latter,  as  the  most  specific  accusation. 

M.  Zea  brings  forward  repeatedly  the  general  charge  of  violated  treaties  ; 
but  as  he  specifies  only  two — that  of  1809  and  that  of  1814 — it  may  be  pre- 
sumed that  he  relies  on  them  alone  to  substantiate  his  charge. 

First  as  to  the  treaty  of  1809. 

That  treaty  was  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  Spanish  struggle  against 
France,  and  was  directed  wholly,  and  in  terms  not  to  be  misapprehended,  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  moment  at  which  it  was  made.  It  was  a  treaty  of  peace 
putting  an  end  to  the  war  in  which  we  had  been  since  1801  engaged  with 
Spain.  It  is  expressly  described  in  the  first  article  as  a  treaty  of  "alliance 
during  the  war,"  in  which  we  were  engaged  jointly  with  Spain  against  France. 
All  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  had  evident  reference  to  the  declared  determi- 
nation of  the  then  ruler  of  France  to  uphold  a  branch  of  his  own  family  upon 
the  throne  of  Spain  and  of  the  Indies;  and  they  undoubtedly  pledged  us  to 
Spain  not  to  lay  down  our  arms  until  that  design  should  be  defeated  in  Spain, 
and  the  pretension  altogether  abandoned  as  to  America — a  pledge  which  it  is 


5S0  APPENDIX. 

not  and  cannot  be  denied  that  Great  Britain  amply  redeemed.  But  those 
objects  once  accomplished,  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  were  fulfilled,  and  its 
obligations  necessarily  expired,  together  with  the  matter  to  which  they  related. 

In  effect,  at  the  happy  conclusion  of  the  war  in  the  Peninsula,  and  after  the 
restoration,  by  British  assistance,  of  his  Catholic  majesty  to  the  throne  of  his 
ancestors,  the  treaty  of  1809  was  replaced  by  the  treaty  of  1814.  And  what 
does  that  treaty  contain  1  First,  the  expression  of  an  earnest  wish  on  the  part 
of  his  majesty,  that  Spanish  America  may  be  reunited  to  the  Spanish  monar- 
chy ;  and,  secondly,  an  engagement  to  prohibit  British  subjects  from  supplying 
the  Spanish  Americans  with  munitions  of  war.  This  engagement  was  in- 
stantly carried  into  effect  by  an  order  in  council  of  1814.  And  in  furtherance 
of  the  like  object,  beyond  the  obligation  of  the  treaty,  an  act  of  parliament 
was  passed  in  1819,  prohibiting  the  service,  of  British  subjects  in  the  ranks  of 
the  resisting  colonies. 

That  the  wish  expressed  in  this  treaty  was  sincere,  the  proof  is  to  be  found 
not  only  in  the  measures  above  mentioned,  but  in  the  repeated  offers  of  Great 
Britain  to  mediate  between  Spain  and  her  colonies.  Nor  were  these  offers  of 
mediation,  as  M.  de  Zea  alleges,  uniformly  founded  on  the  single  basis  of  the 
admission  by  Spain  of  the  independence  of  the  Spanish  provinces. 

Years  had  elapsed,  and  many  opportunities  had  been  missed  of  negotiating 
on  better  terms  for  Spain,  before  that  basis  was  assumed  to  be  the  only  one  on 
which  negotiation  could  be  successfully  opened. 

It  was  not  assumed  in  1812,  when  our  mediation  was  offered  to  the  Cortes. 

It  was  not  assumed  in  1815,  when  Spain  asked  our  mediation,  but  refused  to 
state  the  terms  to  which  she  was  willing  to  agree. 

It  was  not  assumed  in  1818,  in  the  conferences  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  which 
conferences  the  question  of  an  arrangement  between  Spain  and  her  Americas 
was  for  the  first  and  last  time  discussed  between  the  great  powers  of  Europe. 

After  the  silence,  indeed,  which  Spain  observed  as  to  the  opinion  of  the 
powers  assisting  at  those  conferences,  when  laid  before  her,  two  things  be- 
came perfectly  clear ;  the  first,  that  Spain  had  at  that  time  no  serious  inten- 
tion of  offering  any  terms  such  as  the  Spanish  American  provinces  were  likely 
to  accept ;  the  second,  that  any  subsequent  reference  of  the  subject  to  a 
congress  must  be  wholly  fruitless  and  unsatisfactory.  From  that  time  forth, 
Great  Britain  abstained  from  stirring  the  subject  of  negotiation  with  the  colo- 
nics, till,  in  the  month  of  May,  1822,  Spain  spontaneously  announced  to  Great 
Britain  that  she  had  measures  in  contemplation  for  the  pacification  of  her 
Americas  on  a  basis  entirely  new, — which  basis,  however,  was  not  explicitly 
described. 

In  answer  to  that  notification,  Spain  was  exhorted  by  Great  Britain  to  has- 
ten, as  much  as  possible,  her  negotiation  with  the  colonies,  as  the  course  of 
events  was  evidently  so  rapid  as  not  to  admit  of  a  much  longer  delay;  but 
no  suggestion  was  even  then  brought  forward  by  Great  Britain  as  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  basis  of  independence. 

The  first  suggestion  of  that  basis  came,  in  fact,  from  the  government  of 
S'pain  itself,  in  the  month  of  November,  1822,  when  the  British  minister  at 
Madrid  received  an  intimation  that  the  Cortes  meditated  opening  negotiations 
with  the  colonies  on  the  basis  of  colonial  independence;  negotiations  whicb 
were  in  fact  subsequently  opened,  and  carried  to  a  successful  termination, 
with  Buenos  Ayres,  though  they  were  afterwards  disavowed  by  his  Catholic 
majesty. 

It  was  not  till  after  this  last-mentioned  communication  from  the  Spanish  go- 
vernment that  Great  Britain  expressed  the  opinion  which  she  entertained  as  to 
the  hopelessness  of  negotiating  upon  any  other  basis  than  that  then  first  sug- 
gested by  the  Spanish  government. 

This  opinion,  stated  (as  has  been  said)  in  the  first  instance  confidentially  to 
Spain,  was  nearly  a  twelvemonth  afterwards — that  is  to  say,  in  the  month  of 


APPENDIX.  581 

October,  1823 — mentioned  by  the  undersigned  in  a  conference  with  the  French 
ambassador  in  London,  the  substance  of  which  conference  was  communicated 
to  Spain  and  to  the  other  powers.  It  was  repeated  and  enforced  in  the  despatch 
from  the  undersigned  to  Sir  William  A'Court,  in  January,  1824. 

Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  less  exact  than  the  supposition  that  Britain  has 
uniformly  put  forward  the  basis  of  independence  as  the  sine  qua  non  condition 
of  her  counsel  and  assistance  to  Spain  in  negotiating-  with  her  colonies. 

To  come  now  to  the  second  charge  against  Great  Britain — the  alleged  vio- 
lation of  general  international  law.  Has  it  ever  been  admitted  as  an  axiom,  or 
ever  been  observed  by  any  nation  or  government  as  a  practical  maxim,  that  no 
circumstances  and  no  time  should  entitle  a  defucto  government  to  recognition  1 
or  should  entitle  third  powers,  who  may  have  a  deep  interest  in  defining  and 
establishing  their  relations  with  a  de  facto  government,  to  do  so  1 

Such  a  proceeding  on  the  part  of  third  powers  undoubtedly  does  not  decide 
the  question  of  right  against  the  mother  country. 

The  Netherlands  had  thrown  off  the  supremacy  of  Spain  long  before  the 
end  of  the  16th  century;  but  that  supremacy  was  not  formally  renounced  by 
Spain  till  the  treaty  of  Westphalia  in  1648.  Portugal  declared  in  1640  her 
independence  of  the  Spanish  monarchy;  but  it  was  not  till  1668  that  Spain 
by  treaty  acknowledged  that  independence. 

During  each  of  these  intervals  the  abstract  rights  of  Spain  may  be  said  to 
have  remained  unextinguished.  But  third  powers  did  not  in  either  of  these 
instances  wait  the  slow  conviction  of  Spain,  before  they  thought  themselves 
warranted  to  establish  direct  relations,  and  even  to  contract  intimate  alliances 
with  the  republic  of  the  United  Netherlands,  as  well  as  with  the  new  monar- 
chy of  the  house  of  Braganza, 

The  separation  of  the  Spanish  colonies  from  Spain  has  been  neither  our 
work  nor  our  wish.  Events,  in  which  the  British  government  had  no  partici- 
pation, decided  that  separation — a  separation  which  we  are  still  of  opinion 
might  have  been  averted  if  our  counsels  had  been  listened  to  in  time.  But 
out  of  that  separation  grew  a  state  of  things,  to  which  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
British  government  (in  proportion  as  it  became  the  plain  and  legitimate  inte- 
rest of  the  nation  whose  welfare  is  committed  to  its  charge)  to  conform  its 
measures,  as  well  as  its  language,  not  hastily  and  precipitately,  but  with  due 
deliberation  and  circumspection. 

To  continue  to  call  that  a  possession  of  Spain,  in  which  all  Spanish  occu- 
pation and  power  had  been  actually  extinguished  and  effaced,  could  render  no 
practical  service  to  the  mother  country  ;  but  it  would  have  risked  the  peace  of 
the  world.  For  all  political  communities  are  responsible  to  other  political 
communities  for  their  conduct — that  is,  they  are  bound  to  perform  the  ordi- 
nary international  duties,  and  to  afford  redress  for  any  violation  of  the  rights  of 
others  by  their  citizens  or  subjects. 

Now  either  the  mother  country  must  have  continued  responsible  for  acts  over 
which  it  could  no  longer  exercise  the  shadow  of  a  control,  or  the  inhabitants 
of  those  countries,  whose  independent  political  existence  was,  in  fact,  esta- 
blished, but  to  whom  the  acknowledgment  of  that  independence  was  denied, 
must  have  been  placed  in  a  situation  in  which  they  were  either  wholly  respon- 
sible for  all  their  actions,  or  were  to  be  visited  for  such  of  those  actions  as 
might  furnish  ground  of  complaint  to  other  nations  with  the  punishment  due 
to  pirates  and  outlaws. 

If  the  former  of  these  alternatives — the  total  irresponsibility  of  unrecog- 
nised states — be  too  absurd  to  be  maintained,  and  if  the  latter,  the  treatment  of 
their  inhabitants  as  pirates  anil  outlaws,  be  too  monstrous  to  be  applied  for 
an  indefinite  length  of  time  to  a  large  portion  of  the  habitable  globe,  no  other 
chance  remained  for  Great  Britain,  or  for  any  country  having  intercourse  with 
Spanish  American  provinces,  but  to  recognise,  in  due  time,  their  immediate 
existence  as  states,  and  thus  to  bring  them  within  the  pale  of  those  rights  and 

A 


582  APPENDIX. 

duties  which  civilized  nations  are  bound  mutually  to  respect,  and  are  entitled 
reciprocally  to  claim  from  each  other. 

The  example  of  the  late  revolution  in  France,  and  qf  the  ultimate  happy 
restoration  of  his  majesty  Louis  18th,  is  pleaded  by  M.  Zeain  illustration  of 
the  principle  of  unextinguishable  right  in  a  legitimate  sovereign  ;  and  of  the 
respect  to  which  that  right  is  entitled  from  all  foreign  powers;  and  he  calls 
upon  Great  Britain,  in  justice  to  her  own  consistency,  to  act  with  the  same 
reserve  towards  the  new  states  of  Spanish  America,  which  she  employed  so 
much  to  her  honour  towards  revolutionary  France. 

But  can  M.  Zea  need  to  be  reminded  that  every  power  in  Europe,  and 
specifically  Spain  amongst  the  foremost,  not  only  acknowledged  the  several 
successive  governments  de  facto  by  which  the  house  of  Bourbon  was  first 
expelled  from  the  throne  of  France,  and  afterwards  kept  for  near  a  quarter  of 
a  century  out  of  possession  of  it,  but  contracted  intimate  alliances  with  them 
all  ;  and  above  all,  with  that  which  M.  Zea  justly  describes  as  the  strongest 
of  de  facto  governments,  the  government  of  Bonaparte ;  against  whom,  not 
any  principle  of  respect  for  the  rights  of  legitimate  monarchy,  but  his  own 
ungovernable  ambition,  finally  brought  combined  Europe  into  the  field  ] 

There  is  no  use  in  endeavouring  to  give  a  specious  colouring  to  facts  which 
are  now  the  property  of  history. 

The  undersigned  is  therefore  compelled  to  add,  that  Great  Britain  herself 
cannot  justly  accept  the  praise  which  M.  Zea  is  willing  to  ascribe  to  her  in  this 
respect,  nor  can  she  claim  to  be  altogether  exempted  from  the  general  charge 
of  having  treated  with  the  powers  of  the  French  revolution. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  up  to  the  year  179(3,  she  abstained  from  treating  with 
revolutionary  France,  long  after  other  powers  of  Europe  had  set  her  the  exam- 
ple. But  the  reasons  alleged  in  parliament  and  in  state  papers  for  that  absti- 
nence was  the  unsettled  state  of  the  French  government.  And  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  both  in  1796  and  1797  Great  Britain  opened  a  negotiation  for  peace 
with  the  directory  of  France — a  negotiation,  the  favourable  conclusion  of 
which  would  have  implied  a  recognition  of  that  form  of  government ;  that  in 
1801  she  made  peace  with  the  consulate ;  that  if  in  1806  she  did  not  conclude 
a  treaty  with  Bonaparte,  emperor  of  France,  the  negotiation  was  broken  off 
merely  on  a  question  of  terms  ;  and  that  if  from  1808  to  1814,  she  steadily 
refused  to  listen  to  any  overtures  from  France,  she  did  so  declaredly  and  noto- 
riously on  account  of  Spain  alone,  whom  Bonaparte  pertinaciously  refused  to 
admit  as  party  to  the  negotiation. 

Nay,  further,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  even  in  1814,  the  year  In  which  the 
Bourbon  dynasty  was  eventually  restored,  peace  would  have  been  made  by 
Great  Britain  with  Bonaparte  if  he  had  not  been  unreasonable  in  his  demands; 
and  Spain  cannot  be  ignorant  that  even  after  Bonaparte  was  set  aside,  there 
was  question  among  the  allies  of  the  possible  expediency  of  placing  some 
other  than  a  Bourbon  on  the  throne  of  France. 

The  appeal,  therefore,  to  the  conduct  of  the  powers  of  Europe  and  even  to 
that  of  Great  Britain  herself,  with  respect  to  the  French  revolution,  does  but 
recall  abundantinstances  of  the  recognition  of  de  facto  governments  by  Great 
Britain,  perhaps  later  and  more  reluctantly  than  by  others,  but  by  Great  Bri- 
tain herself,  however,  reluctant,  after  the  example  set  to  her  by  the  other  pow- 
ers of  Europe,  and  especially  by  Spain. 

There  are  two  other  points  in  M.  Zea's  note  which  appear  to  call  for  particu- 
lar attention. 

M.  Zea  declares  that  the  king  of  Spain  will  never  recognise  the  new  states 
of  South  America,  and  that  his  majesty  will  never  cease  to  employ  the  force 
of  arms  against  his  rebellious  subjects  in  that  part  of  the  world. 

We  have  neither  the  pretension  nor  the  desire  to  control  his  Catholic 
majesty's  conduct;  but  this  declaration  of  M.  Zea  comprises  a  complete  jus- 
tification of  our  conduct  in  having  taken  the  opportunity,  which  to  us  seemed 


APPENDIX.  583 

ripe,  for  placing  our  relations  with  the  new  states  of  America  on  a  definite 
footing.  For  this  declaration  plainly  shows  that  the  complaint  against  us  is 
not  merely  as  to  the  mode  or  the  time  of  our  advances  towards  those  states ; 
it  shows  that  the  dispute  between  us  and  Spain  is  not  merely  as  to  the  question 
of  fact,  whether  the  internal  condition  of  any  of  those  states  be  such  as  to 
justify  the  entering  into  definite  relations  with  them  ;  that  it  was  not  merely  a 
reasonable  delay  for  the  purpose  of  verifying  contradictory  reports,  and  of  af- 
fording opportunity  for  friendly  negotiation  that  was  required  of  us  :  it  shows 
that  no  extent  of  forbearance  on  our  part  would  have  satisfied  Spain,  and  that, 
defer  our  advances  towards  the  new  states  as  long  as  we  might,  we  should 
still  have  had  to  make  them  without  the  consent  of  Spain  ;  for  that  Spain  is 
determined  against  all  compromise,  under  any  circumstances,  and  at  any  time, 
and  is  resolved  upon  interminable  war  with  her  late  colonies  in  America. 

M.  Zea  concludes  with  declaring  that  his  Catholic  majesty  will  protest,  in 
the  most  solemn  manner,  against  the  measures  announced  by  the  British  govern- 
ment as  violating  existing  treaties,  and  the  imprescriptible  rights  of  the  throne 
of  Spain. 

Agi  :nst  what  will  Spain  protest? 

It  has  been  proved  that  no  treaties  are  violated  by  us ;  and  we  admit  that 
no  question  of  right  is  decided  by  our  recognition  of  the  new  states  of  America. 

But  if  the  argument  on  which  this  declaration  is  founded  be  true,  it  is  eter- 
nal;  and  the  oifence  of  which  we  are  guilty  in  placing  our  intercourse  with 
those  countries  under  the  protection  of  treaties  is  one  of  which  no  time  and 
circumstance  could,  in  the  view  of  Spain,  have  mitigated  the  character. 

Having  thus  entered  with  great  pain  and  unwillingness  into  the  several 
topics  of  M.  Zea's  note,  the  undersigned  is  directed,  in  conclusion,  to  express 
the  anxious  hope  of  his  government  that  a  discussion,  now  wholly  without 
object,  may  be  allowed  here  to  close.  The  undersigned  is  directed  to  declare 
to  the  Spanish  minister,  that  no  feeling  of  ill-will  or  even  of  indifference  to 
the  interests  of  his  Catholic  majesty  has  prompted  the  steps  which  his  majes- 
ty's government  has  taken — that  his  majesty  still  cherishes  an  anxious  wish 
for  the  welfare  of  Spain — and  that  his  majesty  still  retains  the  disposition,  and 
commands  the  undersigned  again  to  renew  to  his  Catholic  majesty's  govern- 
ment the  offer,  to  employ  his  majesty's  good  offices  for  the  bringing  about  of 
any  amicable  arrangements  which  may  yet  be  practicable  between  his  Catho- 
lic majesty  and  the  countries  of  America  which  have  separated  themselves 
from  Spain. 

(Signed)  Geo.  Canning. 


THE   END. 


374 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

nwfcREC'jfoBto-'LlBeT' 

JUL251967 

tWJRL     NOV  2  01967 

JwRl  01979 

-  —  % 

- 

f^fft? 

.   jatt 

Form  L9-Series  444 

UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  390  013 


iTY 


LOS  A4\i,,- 
LIBR 


. 


